Correcting a fellow brother

In the COMMENT SECTION of a RECENT BLOG, a fellow brother in the Lord who goes by the nick SERVICE PROCESS has left a large string of criticisms about me. Apparently, my views are dangerous and I am potentially leading fellow Christians astray. Whether that is true or not, I will leave the reader to decide. Obviously, I don't believe that I am or else I will recant my points. But one thing that really bothered me about ServiceProcess's comments was the fact that he didn't seem to care too much about truth or accuracy.

And what I mean is, he seems to carry the attitude of, "If it comes off the Watchtower's printing press, then it must be bad." And furthermore, if it is a theological perspective or doctrine that is held by Jehovah's Witnesses, then it must be wrong. Of course, he doesn't explicitly state this, but I can't help but get this impression from what he has written.

But there is another issue at hand. Though I am always open to correction on whatever I post on public forums, it is difficult to take someone seriously who misrepresents my position by burning vast fields of strawmen.

Quote [Mike] ‘ And they are correct, that the name Jehovah, or even the YHWH as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures; should be in our hebrew translations, there’s absolutely no reason to put LORD in there because that’s not a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. So I think they are absolutely right that our bible shouldn’t say LORD and we should commend the Jehovah Witnesses for putting the Divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s one thing I think is great, and we as Christians should implement.’

The quoted opening statement is factually incorrect.

Really? This is where ServiceProcess lost pretty much all credibility. Is it factually incorrect that "YHWH" or some transliteration of the Tetragrammaton be in our English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures? In all his comments, he criticizes my position on this, but fails to offer any defense of substituting "LORD" for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, unless he has something to offer in return for disagreeing with inserting "YHWH", "Jehovah", or "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Scriptures (Remember, he called this "factually incorrect"), then his point is moot.

...in the Hebrew Scriptures (refered to by Christians as the New Testament)

First, it amazes me how ServiceProcess could confuse the Hebrew Scriptures with the New Testament. Since I was so baffled at this mistake, I felt it appropriate to ask ServiceProcess a very simple question: Why would you think that by "Hebrew Scriptures" I, or anyone else, would be referring to the New Testament?

And how did the brother respond?

Ha Ha Ha, is that all you got from those entries !.
You did take it personally didn’t you Mike

There was no, "Oh, I am sorry about that. I completely misspoke. And in doing so, I wrongly attributed to you a position that you did not hold to; that the divine name should be inserted into the New Testament." In other words, there was no humility on the part of my fellow brother; no admission of error and no willingness for correction. Thus, his credibility not only flew out the window, but disappeared completely from sight.

However, after another long string of comments that had nothing to do with answering my simple question, I asked the same question again. But the answer I got was hardly one of humility and barely an admission of error:

Is that the most important point you got from the entries that you present it first ?.
That’s unfortunate, but let me answer your question.
I’m a Christian, and for 30+ years I have used the terminology Old and New testament when refering to the bible. I know what the Jehovah witnesses use, but it’s not for me.
In reference to the passage that you cite, I meant Greek scriptures Mike.
But you knew that.
I’ve no doubt that you would like to line the spelling mistakes up next.

Whether I knew it or not, I wanted to make sure I was speaking to someone who would humbly admit his mistake. And this was far more than a mere spelling error. This led to ServiceProcess's strawman critique of the insertion of the divine name in the Christian Scriptures, as if I held to that at all!

none of the 5,000 New Testament manuscripts contain any form of the Hebrew יהוה (Tetragrammaton).
What we do find is kyrios (KYPIOC "lord") and theos (ΘEOC "God") normally known as nomina sacra (sacred names).

The Jehovah Witnesses had it factually; actually and absolutely wrong, because they had an objective which couldn’t include an accurate translation.

Mikes statement then; commending the witnesses and reprimanding the Christians was/is absolutely incorrect and misleading and seems to portray a lack of awareness.

Mikes statement then; commending the witnesses and reprimanding the Christians was/is absolutely incorrect and misleading and seems to portray a lack of awareness.

It may not be the correct forum for a full explanation of why the WTBTS replaced the name LORD with the name Jehovah, but it’s important to have some understanding of the seriousness of the error.

Who is ServiceProcess arguing against? Instead of addressing what I was actually arguing, he goes into a slew of criticizing the JW's for their wrongly inserting the divine name in the Christian Scriptures, as if I was defending them on this point. And this is what truly amazes me; how anyone could get even the slightest impression that I was defending the NWT in this regard. Was it not clear in my VIDEO that I was speaking of the Hebrew Scriptures? In addition, if ServiceProcess had bothered taking even a cursory look through my videos, he would have seen several videos whereby I criticize the NWT for their inserting the divine name in the Christian Scriptures. But this seems to characterize ServiceProcess's way of doing things.

Clearly they don’t have it right Mike.

Jehovah IS NOT God’s name, neither in the Old Testament
Or the New Testament. It’s a false Name, constructed from the YHWH and the Hebrew word
For Lord (Adonia) by a German monk, then it was Anglicized by changing the ‘Y’ for a ‘J’ as the Germans pronounce ‘J’ as a ‘Y’. As in the German for yes is spelt ‘Ja’ but is pronounced ‘Yaa’.
The English then changed it by pronouncing it ‘Ja’ as it was spelt.

So it’s a false name removed about 99 times from the half a name they had in the first place.

SIMPLY PUT, ITS A FALSE NAME, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE NAME.
To advocate otherwise IS at odds to the church.

One wonders if ServiceProcess considers "Jesus" a false name, since the transliteration in Greek is "Iesous" (Ἰησοῦs)? Does he think that all English translations should contain the transliterations from the original language? Or does he think, along with pretty much every Bible translation in existence, that Greek and Hebrew name transliterations should be Anglicized? Therefore, if ServiceProcess is going to be consistent in denouncing "Jehovah," then he needs to denounced any and all names that have been Anglicized into English.

In addition, it is simply a strawman to accuse me or JW's of believing that "Jehovah" is actually how the Israelites pronounced the Tetragrammaton. Obviously, if the Watchtower believed this, then "Jehovah" would break all language barriers. But it doesn't. The name is used differently for different languages, just as any other name would be. And this is one thing i'd really like to correct all my fellow defenders on when they criticize the Watchtower. I can't tell you how many times i've heard fellow apologists spending significant amounts of time "correcting" JW's on their pronunciation of the divine name. Its as if JW's are the only ones using this form of the name and they need to conform. But this is far from the case, as i'll explain below.

The Christian Church at large recognised this and so called God ‘God’ and ‘Lord’.
The Christian Church has already asked the Question ‘Why would God have us scratch around for a name he erased.’. If God didn’t put it in the bible; why should you.

Again, this is a complete strawman. How many fields does ServiceProcess have to burn before he admits that he is arguing with the wrong person? Apparently, he doesn't listen/read to me carefully, as well as what he previously wrote! Otherwise, he would have humbly corrected himself and admitted his erroneously attributing to me arguments that I never made.

SIMPLY PUT, ITS A FALSE NAME, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE NAME.
To advocate otherwise IS at odds to the church.

Amazing! I am at odds with the church by implementing the name "Jehovah?" Is my brother really arguing that anyone who does this is at odds with the church? I don't think ServiceProcess realizes what he is saying here. In my ACCORDANCE BIBLE SOFTWARE program, I decided to see who else is at odds with the church. To test this, I typed "Jehovah" in the search engine to look through all resources, whether it be lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, or theological works to see where the word appeared. And not surprisingly, there were not hundreds, but thousands of hits. The reason this is not surprising is because so many have used "Jehovah" as a proper Anglicized version of the name. Just as an example of resources that used "Jehovah" 40 or more times include: Easton's Bible Dictionary, Matthew Henry's commentary, Thayer's lexicon, the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Calvin's Institutes and Commentaries, Barnes' commentary, Berkhof's summary of doctrine, Hodge, Spurgeon, and much much more. Are all of these authors at odds with the church as well? The use of "Jehovah" is very vast and has been used for centuries by scholars and layperson alike. I think the problem with ServiceProcess is that he can't admit that the JW's got something right and should be commended.

I truly hope that my fellow brother will recant on these things, I really do. And it saddens me that a brother would approach me on such a thing and litter his words with false accusations and strawmen. But apart from such actions, I will continue to do what I do in sharing the truth with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Am I compromising? Bowing down to criticism? At odds with the church?

This is what a fellow Christian (or I assume that he is) said about me with regards to a VIDEO I made about a year ago whereby I stated some of my agreements with Jehovah's Witnesses. If you go to the comment section of this video, you will see a YouTube user who carries the name SERVICE PROCESS. Because I take criticism very seriously (especially from a fellow brother in the Lord), I wanted to address his attempt to correct me here.

Mike. I think you are on dangerous ground here.
I don't feel from what you are saying that you have actually done your homework.

Though everyone is entitled to think what they want about how much homework I have done, I would like to point out that I spent over two years in personal study with the Jehovah's Witnesses as well as attend meetings throughout that time period. In addition, I have interacted with countless JW's on the internet since that time. However, I would ask that the reader look at the work that i've produced in relation to JW's to see if it comes from someone who has done his homework.

I think you are wholly misleading the church here. Because you are talking to the Christian Church at large.
I don't know if you are bowing down to a bit of Critisism or if you are Liberal !!

Is it really misleading to give credit where credit is due? Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with my videos and blogs know that I am extremely critical of the beliefs and practices of JW's. So what is ServiceProcess really speaking of here?

But either way, you are at odds with the Christian Church with some of your views.

This is a very bold accusation my friend. If this statement isn't backed up, then I really hope you will retract it.

The Witnesses emphasize the name Jehovah as God's name when it isn't. No one knows Gods name.

This is an interesting claim. But it doesn't answer any questions. Since we don't know with one hundred percent certainty how the Hebrews pronounced the Tetragrammaton, then what is ServiceProcess suggesting we put in place of it where it appears over six thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Is he actually suggesting that "LORD" is a proper rendering? What about other Hebrew names? If we weren't sure about how some other Hebrew names were produced, would it justify substituting a title in its place? Or would it be more proper to transliterate it the best that one can? What is interesting here is that there are countless protestant scholars who, for centuries, had no problem in using "Jehovah" as the English transliteration of the divine name. Read Calvin's institutes. Its all over the place. Read Warfield's work on the Trinity; all over the place. Obviously, it is controversial as to what is the most proper way to retain the Tetragrammaton in our translations. In my opinion, using the English equivalents "YHWH" would be the best, as it leaves the reader to decide for himself how to pronounce it. But one thing is for sure: "LORD" is not in any way, a proper way to translate or pronounce the Tetragrammaton at all. And if I remember correctly, i've even heard James White echo this very view.

They have restored it in the new testament alright; and changed the meanings of many of the passages in the process; they have also put the name in the new testament where it wasn't before. Over 270 times.

Objective : To take the focus away from Jesus;
Instigated by : Satan

Is that what you think we Christians should do ?
You really really need to retract on this one my friend.

Where ServiceProcess gets the idea that I am endorsing the New World Translation in inserting the Divine Name in the Christian Scriptures is beyond me. In fact, if my fellow brother here had taken a few seconds to look, he would have noticed that I have made several videos criticizing the NWT for doing this very thing! Obviously, we all can come up with our reasons for why the NWT is wrong and what their motive for this practice is, but at this point it is irrelevant since I never addressed this aspect in the first place.

Jehovah's Kingdom. Mike, Jesus talked more about Hell actually, should we talk alot about that ?

Of course we should talk a lot about hell as well as all the other things that Jesus taught. So is my brother suggesting that I shouldn't emphasize God's Kingdom when I proclaim the gospel? And if my memory serves correctly, what is the first thing Jesus preached? Hell, or God's Kingdom?

However, let me be clear in stating that I don't believe the JW's are correct in their understanding of the Kingdom of God, as it is heavily linked to 1914, which I obviously reject. Thus, I would explain to a JW something along these lines; "You are correct in that you are emphasizing God's Kingdom in your preaching work, but let me show you where I think you are off on some of its details." Am I doing something wrong here?

it might be printed on there, it doesn't mean they talk alot about it. They Don't.
Jesus's focus was on love for God and Man.

On the contrary, JW's do talk a lot about hell. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a JW at my door where we didn't discuss hell. Also, there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy in what ServiceProcess said here and what he said a sentence or two previous. "Jesus talked more about hell actually" vs. "Jesus' focus was on love for God and man." So which is it?

The JW's do focus on this in their shunning and theocratic warfare (lying) practices.

Yep, good advice for the Christian Church at large.

Where in the Scriptures is there a precedence for rebuking a fellow Christian using sarcasm?

NWT Interlinear. Mike. Seriously. The JW bible is not the Christian Bible, please don't recommend it to us Christians. (No wonder all the JW's enjoyed this presentation).

I stand by my claim; the Kingdom Interlinear is a helpful resource to have. In fact, I can't tell you how many ex-JW's came to saving faith in Jesus Christ by reading...you guessed it, the Kingdom Interlinear! Yes, the resource contains the NWT on the right margin, but that is one thing that makes this resource so valuable! Any student of the Bible can compare the literal Greek with the NWT or any translation of their choosing. Furthermore, I don't think I am alone in suggesting that the KIT may very well be the most valuable resource one can have in witnessing to JW's.

Listen. The JW Bible says there are 2 Gods. Jesus is A God, and Jehovah is a God.
That is absolutely not Christianity ... its .... well ... its.... Pagan.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT US REAL CHRISTIANS TO BELIEVE.?

seriously. Don't bow down to pressure from me or them, but do do your homework Mark.

Notice that, in my video, I wasn't commending the NWT, but the KIT. I would never recommend the NWT for Christians to read; not necessarily because I believe it is a bad translation, but because it was not done by a trained committee who are scholars in the original languages. In fact, I wouldn't recommend any Bible that was not done in this regard!

JW Bible Dictionary ! Insight on the Scriptures!.
In your next video could you please provide positive points on Voodoo !!

You are playing with fire my friend.

Thayer's Greek lexicon is a very popular and timely resource that has been used by evangelicals for a very long time. Personally, I have found this to be a very valuable lexicon that I think every Christian should have on their bookshelf. Do I endorse everything that Thayer would say in his lexicon? Of course not. Is Thayer a Christian? No, unless you consider Unitarians to be Christians. And what about other lexicons and Bible dictionaries? BDAG? HALOT? Are these Greek and Hebrew lexicons produced by evangelical protestants? If not, then should we not be telling practically all seminaries to quit admonishing their students to use these resources?

This is something that we need to be careful of; throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even the most rank heretic is capable of doing good research, even though we may not always accept their conclusions. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this. Dr. Ehrman is a brilliant scholar who has done some very good research. But obviously, I don't agree with all of Ehrman's conclusions. The same goes with the Insight books. Is there good research in some Watchtower publications? Of course! Do I agree with all of the conclusions? Of course not! Like with any book I read, I do so with discernment.

The bible doesn't say to commend the false prophet does it.
Christianity isn't happy with falsety within you know.
The JW denies Jesus Christ as the only name given by which we must be saved.
There is no salvation in it.

I fully agree that there is no salvation in the WT system, for the reason you mention here as well as their denial of justification apart from works (Romans 4:5). But again, is it wrong to look at a publication produced by an unbeliever and say, "wow, this is some really good research!" I simply don't see what's wrong with that.

In conclusion, I want to thank ServiceProcess for seeking to correct me on these matters, though I can't find myself agreeing with much of what he said. But I will say that I will continue to prayerfully consider these issues as I approach them in the future in hopes that I bring glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Some gleanings on Systematic Theology

Too often we get focused on specific biblical issues without seeing what else is out there. That is, I know of people who seem to study nothing else other than the Biblical texts which relate to the Calvinism/Arminian debate. And there are others who seem to study and discuss nothing other than Trinitarianism; whether they are for it or against it. But one thing that people lack, including myself, is a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole. That is, if the Bible is God's Word, then we should not view it as sets of verses or different books piled together. Instead, we should view it as one book. But to do this, we need to be able to take a step back and be able to see how the Bibles eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology all work out together. For instance, if you have never taken the time to study eschatology or baptism, how do you know the manner in which this might impact your view on the nature of God? Could your understanding on these subjects impact how you understand, let's say, the identity of Christ? The simple answer is, you don't know.

This is why i'm taking the time to study SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY a little bit each day. Why? Because it forces you to systematize your individual beliefs into one cohesive unit. That is, it sharpens the consistency of your beliefs. If your Christology puts you at odds with your eschatology, then one of them needs to be corrected.

Right now i'm reading through Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm sure a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear Calvin's name. But there is no denying the fact that his "systematic theology" is nothing short of brilliant in offering a cohesive and comprehensive look at the Bible as a whole. Now, I certainly do not agree with everything Calvin says. But that is not the point of reading a systematic theology. As you read, you critique the views offered and formulate your own. This way, you not only research topics you never thought about before, but you sharpen and refine views you might already hold strongly to.

If you are a student of theology, pick up a systematic theology today and read it alongside your daily Bible readings. And i'm not saying this in a "Bible study aid" sort of way. In fact, forget the actual views that your particular systematic theology espouses. Look at the subject itself and ask yourself, "I see how Calvin (or whoever else) is forming his view on this, but how would I form mine? As I read through today's biblical texts, do my understandings of, let's say, ecclesiology jive with what Romans 4 teaches about salvation?"

With that said, i'd like to share what I read in Calvin's Institutes (who knows how often i'll do this) to see what anyone else thinks, whether they agree or disagree.

Book One, Chapter 13: section 20

Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” he subjoins, “that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:8 , 9 ). For it is certain that the name of Lord ( Kuriou ) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21 ; Joel 2:28 ). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ.

(By the way, I much prefer McNeill's translation of Calvin better than this one. But this came from my Bible software and was easier to copy and paste)

Using the Divine Name in New Testament Translations part 2 of 2

Using the Divine Name in New Testament Translations part 1 of 2