Originally posted by galveston75Yeah but I caught that gem and it does not take away from the validity of my question.
I thought we were talking about the soul here?
JW's doctine is full of holes and contradicts itself just another example.
If the holy spirit is just a force as the JW's propose then how can it (He) be lied to?
Or teach anyone?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71OK Manny, be patient and I have some expinations for you if you want. If your not interested in why we know it's not a perason just let me know and I will stop. This is in a couple parts so please take your time and see what it is saying...
Yeah but I caught that gem and it does not take away from the validity of my question.
JW's doctine is full of holes and contradicts itself just another example.
If the holy spirit is just a force as the JW's propose then how can it (He) be lied to?
Or teach anyone?
Manny
The Greek pneuma (spirit) comes from pneo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ruach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ruach and pneuma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.
Let me know if I'm to continue...
Continue if you like but then how can a force be lied to?
Can I lie to a flow of electrons? NO. Can I lie to flowing air? NO. Person hood is given to the spirit of God in the bible. There are more examples from the bible if you like.
I know the spirit of God is associated with creating and bringing to life both spiritually and physically but that does not take away person hood.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71When it comes to God's force...Yes.
Continue if you like but then how can a force be lied to?
Can I lie to a flow of electrons? NO. Can I lie to flowing air? NO. Person hood is given to the spirit of God in the bible. There are more examples from the bible if you like.
I know the spirit of God is associated with creating and bringing to life both spiritually and physically but that does not take away person hood.
Manny
Personification does not prove personality.
It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.
So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive para kletos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneuma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with para kletos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.
Lacks personal identification. Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—Compare Ac 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, Int and other interlinear translations.
A question for you and I don't require a yes or no answer. But why is the Holy Spirit or ghost or active force not have a name? Jesus has a name as so does his Father Jehovah.
Originally posted by menace71I don't think that would qualify as a name.... And your correct about Jehovah having no equal but I know you don't mean or believe that...
Well I would say His name is the spirit of God. God's spirit.
I would also venture to say that Jesus Christ has all of the authority and power of God almighty but how can that be? God almighty has no equal right?
Manny
So any other thoughts on the spirit of God and what it is? Did you read the postings I showed you? A yes or no would be ok here...
I believe the spirit of God is God. Plain and simple.
Yes I also believe that Jehovah has no equal. How do I rectify this statement that Christ has all the power and authority of Jehovah? I can prove to you in scripture that he does indeed have this power and authority. Maybe the reason is because they are indeed equal. Sounds kinda pagan on the surface huh?
PS: Did you know the early Russellites believed that the pyramid at Giza somehow helped foretell when end time events would occur? Sounds kinda pagan to me! 😉
Manny
Originally posted by menace71So I take it that you've read nothing I've posted?
I believe the spirit of God is God. Plain and simple.
Yes I also believe that Jehovah has no equal. How do I rectify this statement that Christ has all the power and authority of Jehovah? I can prove to you in scripture that he does indeed have this power and authority. Maybe the reason is because they are indeed equal. Sounds kinda pagan on the surface h ...[text shortened]... ow helped foretell when end time events would occur? Sounds kinda pagan to me! 😉
Manny
It's stuff I already know. Like the Greek and Hebrew words for spirit. Honestly I read your post and follow some links but I just flat out disagree with your (The JW's) interpretation of the bible. I think I should take a break myself from the spiritual forum. It is the equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall only mentally. You think that only JW know or have read the bible? I've read the entire bible more than once. I've been involved in bible studies in the past. I guarantee you that I know the bible at least as well as you do. However I heard it somewhere that the JW can turn the average Christian in to a doctrinal pretzel in about one minute flat. I think it's the presumptuous way you come off at times that is bothersome. You come with a question that you already have the answer for. You don't truly want our answers you already have your answer. I however am still not calling you names or demeaning you personally. I attack your organization and its falsehood. The thing though I guess is live and let live right? God will judge in the end.
Manny
Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?
No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.
Many scholars favour the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahweh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.
After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.
Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.
Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Yeshua, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, Iesous. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshippers in a manner that honours him?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no real disagreement with your argument, The real argument is claiming that one is practicing the true religion by virtue of using God's name. I just figure if you are going to make that argument then you might want to get the name right.
Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?
No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the supersti ...[text shortened]... king well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshippers in a manner that honours him?
Originally posted by duecerbut the name is correct, indeed, can you state that it is not? i think I already sent you an extensive list, forgive me for repeating myself.
I have no real disagreement with your argument, The real argument is claiming that one is practicing the true religion by virtue of using God's name. I just figure if you are going to make that argument then you might want to get the name right.
Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova
indeed, which one is not the correct one??