WHAT'S IN A NAME? (Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Pt. 1)

Occasionally, the Mrs. and I get that knock at the door.  

Barring one recent visit with some Mormon "elders," we're usually greeted by Jehovah's Witnesses handing out Watchtower literature, and spreading the message of their organization.  I imagine most people respond with a "no thanks" and promptly close the door.  Myself - this is one instance where I have no qualms about going the extra mile.  The pump's already primed, you know?  They're obviously hungry for spiritual truth... you just have to plant some doubt concerning their current (false) beliefs, give them the Truth, then pray for God to do the rest.  I mean - not to be flippant, but - that's more-or-less what we do with everyone on some level.  Right?

Current case in point:  I had a discussion yesterday with a Jehovah's Witness (JW) which covered the topic of God's "name."  That's a pretty important topic to JW's... after all, they call themselves by that name, right?  Well... not exactly; but I digress.

The "name" of the LORD is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, when Moses asked the Lord His name for when he spoke to the Israelites.  This was a special, supremely revered name.  This was the special name of the One True God; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  In fact, the command, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), specifically refers to this name.

So what is this name?  Depending on era and dialect, it looks something like the following (sorry if this offends anyone!):

The top name is written in Paleo-Hebrew (3,000-year-old Hebrew), the second in Aramaic (old Semitic language adopted under Medo-Persian empire), the bottom in Modern Hebrew (in use for the last 2,000+ years).  It's spelled (goin' with modern Hebrew, read right to left) yod-he-waw-he; so the best English transliteration would be YHWH.

One popular form of the name is Jehovah.  This was formulated by taking the vowels from the Hebrew word for 'lord' (adonai) and imposing them upon the Modern Hebrew Name; since Hebrew was originally written without 'vowels,' and no one is completely certain how "YHWH" was originally pronounced (though many scholars suggest 'Yahweh').  

JW's, interestingly, don't dispute this origin of "Jehovah," but still insist upon it's strict usage by English-speakers.  As if it's a marker of true spirituality:  using God's correct Name.  

While speaking with my JW visitor yesterday, we read a great deal from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publication, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, which he used to facilitate the discussion.  On page 195, the third paragraph reads:

How important is God's name?  Consider the model prayer that Jesus Christ gave.  It begins this way:  "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified." (Matthew 6:9)  Later, Jesus prayed to God:  "Father, glorify your name."  In response, God spoke from heaven, saying: "I both glorified it and will glorify it again." (John 12:28)  Clearly, God's name is of the utmost importance.  Why, then, have some translators left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles?

On page 196:

In replacing God's name with titles, Bible translators make a serious mistake.  They make God seem remote and impersonal, whereas the Bible urges humans to cultivate "intimacy with Jehovah." (Psalm 25:14)

Interesting points, to say the least.

With their position in mind, do you notice anything about the scriptures they quote on page 195 above?  How about the fact that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF is honoring His Father's Name, and yet doesn't use it at all.  Not in the "model prayer" (Matthew 6), nor in the prayer before the crowd in which He was 'answered' from heaven (John 12).  The Watchtower is using these verses to prove their 'point,' and yet "Jehovah" is not used therein.

In fact, God's "Name" (in any translation of YHWH) is not used in the ENTIRE New Testament.  The reason isn't because modern translators "left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles."  The reason is because translators from the 3rd to the 1st century BCE left it out.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.  When you read a portion of the New Testament which quotes the Old Testament (or Tanakh), it's quoting from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.  Guess how many times the name "Jehovah" appears in the Septuagint?

ZERO!!

And yet no New Testament writer had a problem quoting from the Septuagint, which substituted the word 'LORD' (Greek: kurios) for God's special covenant name, YHWH.  It was understood that YHWH was being referenced, which took nothing away from the message of the apostles.  

Furthermore, the name "YHWH" is not found anywhere else in New Testament Greek manuscripts.  Greek-speaking Jews (certainly) and Christians (most likely) wouldn't have used the name.  No apostles used the Name, at least in writing:  Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude - none of them.  Doesn't exist in the New Testament.

Yet, JW's have the audacity to put into print a statement like, "In replacing God's name with titles, Bible translators make a serious mistake."  Were the Septuagint scholars making a mistake?  The apostles?  We only have God's word concerning His Son's life, death, resurrection and subsequent ministry through His apostles - because of His apostles.  

Would the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the consistency and courage to say of the apostles that "They make God seem remote and impersonal"??  They certainly didn't use "Jehovah" (or even YHWH) in any of their writings!  

This is just one, somewhat minor inconsistency within JW theology.  It just happened to be one I dealt with very very recently, and found rather incredible.

The 'good news' is, I can offer this visitor from the Kingdom Hall something much better than what he can offer me.  If JW's are truly concerned with cultivating intimacy with Jehovah, then they must become His sons, through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  This happens only through faith, and faith alone in Christ Jesus: God in the flesh.

This intimacy - true intimacy - isn't created by "using the correct name."  This intimacy is created because of a new birth: rebirth into the family of God.  See, I know my earthly father's name.  I'm very familiar with it, and I even know how to pronounce it correctly.  Nevertheless, because the of 'intimacy' of being his son, I don't call him by his name.  I call him something much more special, much more intimate.  I call him "dad."

Because of the what Christ accomplished in His death, burial, resurrection and ascension - I can call God the Father my Father.  And what's more intimate than that?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

The Deficit vs. The Wealthy

After reading a few recent "news" articles, I began thinking about our deficit.  It's pretty bad, you know.  Up to $455 billion right now (now = November 2008).  Lots of people have lots of different ways they'd like to deal with it.  You know what they say about opinions...

Some folks - including the recent President-Elect, Barack Obama - believe the answer (or at least most of the answer) lies in increasing taxes on the "wealthy."  That's certainly one option.  One I gave some thought to this morning.

I'm confident that debates on taxes in this country will continue as long as the country itself does.  Nevertheless, I decided to crunch some numbers I hadn't seen crunched in any major news outlets (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, USAToday, etc.).  

How much money was collected by the government in federal taxes just last year (2007)?  Lots.  Well over 2-and-a-half $trillion$, in fact.  So, I guess the idea (held by some) is to increase taxes on the 'wealthy' to up that gigantic number a bit, so we can start making a dent in our budget deficit.

So I start wondering how much, exactly, these super-wealthy yuppies are paying into that 2.5 trillion amount.  Turns out that the wealthiest 1% (that's not a typo:  that's the number ONE, and a percentage symbol)... the wealthiest 1% of tax payers in the U.S. paid 36.9% of all federal tax collected in 2007.  That's a fact (click the link to check me on it).  

Do you know how much 36.9% of 2-and-a-half TRILLION is??  Again:  lots.  So much, in fact, that it's OVER DOUBLE the amount of our $455 billion-dollar deficit.

This is what the numbers actually look like:

2007 Total Federal Tax Collected:                $2,674,007,818,000 (See?  Over 2.5 trillion)

Wealthiest 1%:                                                  Paid 36.9% of total (i.e., $986,708,884,842)

2008 US Budget Deficit (as of November):  $455,000,000,000

As anyone with a 3rd grade education could see, the "wealthiest 1%" of taxpayers actually gave this country more than double what our current budget deficit is.  The solution then - as suggested by some - is to increase taxes on this tiny minority of taxpayers who already pay nearly two-fifths of what the government receives, per annum.  That's 1% of taxpayers (not 'all citizens,' taxpayers) paying 36.9% of all taxes received by the federal government.  

After seeing this, I have to sort of wonder aloud:  is the problem really that the wealthy aren't "paying their share," or is it that the federal government couldn't successfully manage a lemonade stand?  When 46% of the taxes collected from just 1% of all taxpayers could completely eliminate the budget deficit - why are we even talking about raising taxes??  

Why not have the (super bloated) government tighten its belt just a bit, and learn to effectively manage the trillions of dollars it already receives from us?  (Before okaying a tax increase on those who shoulder the majority of the burden.)

A wise king winnows the wicked, And drives the {threshing} wheel over them. 

                                                                                           -Proverbs 20:26

Loyalty and truth preserve the king, And he upholds his throne by righteousness. 

                                                                                               -Proverbs 20:28

A Brit Sums It Up

Found this quote from Melanie Phillips on The Spectator UK:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

Yeah.  That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  

Syrian Churches Holding Their Own in Northern Iraq

An NPR article by Peter Kenyon:

A new phenomenon is spreading through the Christian towns and villages of northern Iraq: Christian security forces, organized through their local churches, are manning checkpoints and working with the Iraqi police.

Christians are usually doormats in this part of the world, so this was quite a refreshing read.

The Exalted Void

Let me be right up front with you:  astronomy is one of my 'weak suits.'

That being said, I got a good laugh out of Clara Moskowitz' recent Space.com article, Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?  It's a well-written piece, so this has nothing to do with Ms. Moskowitz, per se.  The article more-or-less gives an alternative view to the typical understanding of 'space' and the whole dark matter/dark energy debacle.  Some scientists are now postulating:

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

The humor hits towards the end of the article.  Apparently, the biggest initial objection to this theory is that it means the earth is special.  Moskowitz writes that the void theory:

... negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.  [emphasis mine]

I couldn't make this stuff up.  I wish I could.  It's a challenge to "science" for any view to postulate that the earth is unique.  I'm sorry... that's just hilarious.  Is earth not unique?  Does empirical evidence not support this?  Isn't earth still the only known planet with life on it?  Not just life - but intelligent life?  Isn't earth the only known planet able to support life as we know it?  Don't we have an abundance of H2O in liquid form here?  Is that not special?

Anyway, I don't mean to rant.  When I read statements like:

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."

... I just have to laugh.

No "i" in Team...

One of my live ninjas - the Ox - has written a pretty good piece over at Assembly Quest entitled, Apostasy, Then and Now.  I suggest checking it out.

Much of it focuses on Daniel 9, and its application to the contemporary church (especially 'Brethren').  While understanding that Daniel was writing under a(n obedience-based) Law Covenant - as a member of that covenant nation - and plenty of "disenfranchised assembly guy" stuff not withstanding, he still makes some awesome (and honest) points.

My favorite part follows (reprinted without permission):

Daniel 9 is well worth examining, but I want to point out what is to me the most outstanding feature: Daniel was personally guilty of none of the things he confessed. Daniel himself had not committed the idolatries and immoralities he confessed; he had been only a boy when taken from Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and had an impeccable track record when in Babylon. Further, he was decidedly separated from the rest of Israel while in Babylon. But despite his personal blamelessness in the sins he confesses, he insists on saying "we".

I find this striking, because my experience in "brethren" has been precisely that they see themselves as somehow blameless in the current state of things, because they "walk in separation".  But Daniel---one of only a couple men of whom the Scripture recordsnot one sin---falls to his knees and says "we".

This is the great failure of "brethren" in my mind: that having seen the deplorable state of the Church, they have refused to humble themselves and confess it as "we". They've been quick to separate from sin they see, even if it means separating from other Christians; one would think that might mean they understand the seriousness of sin. But they have refused to acknowledge that we are all One Body, what one member does, all feel. Their fine-tuned rules of fellowship and separation have sprung from an admirable sense of wanting to avoid evil: but they have failed to see the big picture; we are in this together.