blogforjesus

The English word Jehovah was used by the translators of the King James Version in referring to the Hebrew name for God. However, this word form was an improper interpretation which resulted from a lack of understanding regarding the Jewish scribal rules as practiced by the Masoretes.

The Masoretes, in an attempt not to profane God’s name, used an alternative or hybrid form of the word in order to preserve the holiness and sacredness of God’s name when pronounced.

This word derivative evolved by using the tetragrammaton YHWH  which are the four consonants of God’s name and combined them with the vowel signs  for Lord (Adonai) which resulted in the word “Y’howah”.

The name of God was further altered by using the English transliteration of the word Jehovah which was not always consistent in every scriptural reference and therefore the usage of this name had alternative forms as recorded in the Masoretic text.

So today when a Jew vocally reads from the Tanakh and he comes across the Hebrew name for God ( יהוה )  he will not pronounce God’s name but instead he will substitute the word for Lord(אדני) in its place.

Religious Jews whenever they invoke God’s name in a personal conversation will only say God, Lord, or HaShem(The Name). They wouldn’t even think of trying to pronounce God’s actual name or its hybrid form.

Also when Jews write the name of God they use the words L-rd / G-d instead of Lord or God out of respect for His name.

All these conceptual ideas originated and were practiced by the Jews who were the original bearers of the ancient Hebrew text. On this point an individual can differ on whether or not they are right in keeping with these scribal laws but one thing is for certain and that is that God’s name was never Jehovah and therefore no ancient Israelite would have ever used or understood this name when referring to God. In addition to this, there aren’t any ancient Hebrew consonants that would reflect a sound for the letter “J”.

Dr. Michael Brown, who has his PhD in Semitic languages, along with other leading scholars interpret God’s name as being Yahweh and to pronounce it in English it would sound more like Jahveh.

If a person really wants to more accurately speak God’s real name you would need to pronounce it according to its original Hebraic context which is definably more accurate based on the biblical text. The reason for the proper usage of names in Hebrew is because the words being uttered have symbolic meaning which in this case was relevant to God’s character. The name of God was never understood to have some type of meaning based on a mystical experience of uttering or chanting  meaningless sounds nor was it a matter of formulating a  phonetically or rhythmic style of wording that only had a sense of aesthetic value but  rather a name served as a purposeful or defining feature to the individual.

The etymology of God’s name based on the Hebrew word interprets His name as the causative form of the root” to be” which depicts Him as the One who causes things to be or who makes things happen.

Another example to the significance of using biblical names is reflected in the name of Jesus or Yeshua(ישוע) which is the Hebrew-Aramaic form of His name. Yeshua is a shortened form of the English word Joshua (Yehoshua) which means Yahweh is salvation.

In conclusion, if the accuracy of using God’s name holds a specific value due to its proper pronouncement and usage and therefore becomes a critical element in properly identifying God or representing a movement then the English transliterated word Jehovah only becomes a distortion  and an inaccuracy when pronouncing His name.

In reality I am not even sure if we precisely know how to pronounce God’s name so therefore the most correct use or proper way of handling God’s literal name is by avoiding the pitfalls of vocalization by keeping to the simplicity of the written word in designating God’s name as יהוה and even this is not completely adequate since the Hebrew script has undergone various transitional changes down through the ages of time.

Finally in being a witness of God’s name, it is far less critical in adjusting the fine tuning of semantics with all of its rigors of speech and script than it is to accurately portray a biblical concept of the grandeur of His glorious person and work which should leave us with a sense of awe beyond the confines of speech.

How to know God

Jehovah’s Witness Resources

More articles on Jehovah’s Witness

In this blog I would like to address the founders of this movement or cult namely Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford.

At first glance when I saw this duo of leadership I immediately thought of a correlation with Mormonism and its two infamous leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

These people were literally visionaries to the success of their organizations. Both of these movements were established in the 19th century and they both singled out the controversies that were prevalent in their day which resulted in them obtaining a platform to herald their new founded(restored) religions.

My challenge to either group is that since they both deviate radically from mainline Christendom and they both claim they have the ultimate truth then which of these two are exclusively right?

Anyway I believe that a movement is only as valid as the integrity of its founder. The Jehovah Witnesses would like to dissociate their past or beginnings with the “Pastor” or Russell and yet there would not be a movement today had it not been for Russell’s efforts.

Perhaps some of the reasons why Russell had been rejected was based on the fact that  he was a  shady character and also because Rutherford denounced many of Russell’s teachings.

I find it amazing that in God’s sovereignty of restoring  truth that he would have even bothered to use such an infallible person like Russell. Why didn’t He just use Rutherford to broadcast His message to others to begin with. Just the fact that the movement can not establish a solid base of leadership in its formation shows its instability which upon observation should be viewed with skepticism.

One thing about contemporary religions or cults is that their truth claims can be weighed or critiqued more readily due to the modern era of communication and record keeping which helps in keeping people honest.

To begin with some of the things that hurt Russell’s credibility was his failure in regards to jurisprudence. He filed suit on a couple of occasions and every time the charges were either dropped or thrown out of court.

One of these cases was the fraudulent claims concerning the “Miracle Wheat” scandal of which he claimed would produce and yield as much as fives times the amount as ordinary wheat and therefore he sold this grain at an inflated price.

However when government officials tested it for its quality they claimed it was low in their testings.

Another court incident was in 1912 when Russell attempted to sue Reverend JJ Ross for publishing a pamphlet on Russell. Russell countered by taking Ross to court with a charge of defamatory libel. All Russell had to do to win his case was to substantiate or provide evidence concerning the allegations against him that had been made in the publication by Ross.

These claims, of which Russell was accused of, was due to an insufficiency in regards to his education, theological training, knowledge of the dead languages such as Hebrew and Greek, and the fact that he was not ordained or had the credentials to be ordained by a recognized body of leadership. All these claims made by Ross were denied by Russell  and now the court proceedings would have to arbitrate in deciphering the truth.

From this court case the thing that really destroyed the reliability of Russell’s character  was the fact that he perjured himself.

When questioned about his education he claimed he had left school at the age of 14 and therefore he had not attained to a higher level of education.

Also He claimed knowledge of the dead languages and when questioned about in court concerning the Greek alphabet he finally admitted that he did not know Greek.

Now as far as his ordination was concerned it was discovered that he considered himself to be self ordained.

Lastly he lied under oath that he was divorced and that he was paying alimony to his former wife.

After Russell’s death in 1916 he was succeeded by Joseph Rutherford who would take the mantle of leadership in establishing what is now known today as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Rutherford though not rejecting every doctrinal teaching of Russell did change, challenge or overturn the rulings of former Russellite doctrine.

Amazingly enough even though the Jehovah Witnesses have made claims to be free from the influence of Russell’s teachings there are still overtones that are embodied within their statements of beliefs and Russell’s teachings were still used as late as 1973 in one of the Watchtower publications.

We must still remember that Russell was the very cornerstone of this movement and without him their would not be a foundation in which to build the Kingdom Hall.

Now concerning Rutherford he was said to be of questionable character by several people who were closely associated with him. One of these individuals was Olin Moyle who was the legal council and he had confronted Rutherford about his inebriated episodes as well as the use of vulgarity, discriminatory language, and outbursts of anger.

In addition to these claims came his luxurious lifestyle having obtained many residences and like Russell his wife divorced him after He took  the role of leadership in this movement.

It appears that the “Judge” had some questionable character traits as well which when combined with his heretical teachings shows that the fruit didn’t fall too far from the tree.

A list of the teachings would include:

A full restoration of mankind in 1925 along with the resurrection of some of the biblical patriarchs which later developed into him building Beth Sarim in 1929. Beth Sarim would know serve to house these prophets and the faithful men of old. Later Rutherford recanted his position on his belief.

Instead of Christ returning in 1878, which was the date set by original founder, Rutherford took the liberty to move it up to the year 1914.

In 1927 Rutherford moved the date of the resurrection of the “sleeping saints” which was said to have taken place between 1878-1918.

In 1933 Rutherford changed His 1918 assessment concerning the Jews being restored to what was then called Palestine. As you know Israel became a state in 1948 and if he would of just held out a little longer then his original prediction would have been right.

Also Rutherford took a stance against the rise of the women’s movement and said that the tipping of the hat or standing when a woman approaches was a scheme of the devil to turn men from God. Also included within his disfavor was the celebration of Mother’s Day.

In 1938 he urged followers to delay marriage and child bearing until after Armageddon.

In conclusion to analyzing the character and teachings of these men it would be hard to establish their authenticity and veracity as agents or receptacles of God’s revelatory truth. Based on the evidence would you really want to trust your eternal souls to their teachings which have failed to be substantiated through the evidential testimonies of the people, courts, media, and even their own publications.

Its bad enough that there is a lack of corroboration between these two parties and if  one character can be questioned then why not both ? Who is the agent of truth here ? Is it the originator or the successor?

All I ask is that you do the research in verifying these statements and then allow the evidence to speak for itself or to lead you into the direction of truth.

To do further studies on the subject you may refer to some of the references I used in Wikipedia or by utilizing Walter Martin’s book on “The Kingdom of the Cults” for further information.

Lastly this is not intended to be a smear campaign and I hope you see this as a generous effort to warn you for your own good and benefit.

Finally in 2 Peter 2:1-3 it says:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. ² Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. ³ In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

How to know God

Jehovah’s Witness Resources

More articles on Jehovah’s Witness