Anna

I think those who are serious about not pronouncing God's name in English should also stick to pronouncing Jesus's name as Yeshua. After all he is God's son, the second most important person in the universe. And it would probably be best if they used a Hebrew accent too.
 

You can jaw on as you like, but you're still squirreling around doing your best to avoid God's name - Jehovah. Another thing that convinces me that Jehovah is right, is the kinds of people and their specious and inconsistent arguments against using Jehovah. It's like in the movies when the vampires shrink back at the sight of a cross. Gods name just freaks them out and they have to, like a startled octopus ink up the room w/junky inconsistent arguments.

* "let your name be known"
"God said: “Because he has affection for me, I will rescue him. I will protect him because he knows my name". (Psalm 91:14)
 "Those knowing your name will trust in you; You will never abandon those seeking you, O Jehovah". (Psalms 9:10)
Biblical scholar Francis B. Dennio, in an article he wrote, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, said: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." ............form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English.
 
Let's stop playing games. You know you cannot let the name Jehovah pass your lips without shuddering because of your hate for His Witnesses.  Like I said, it tells me a lot.

* "let your name be known"
"God said: “Because he has affection for me, I will rescue him. I will protect him because he knows my name". (Psalm 91:14)
 "Those knowing your name will trust in you; You will never abandon those seeking you, O Jehovah". (Psalms 9:10)
Biblical scholar Francis B. Dennio, in an article he wrote, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, said: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." ............form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English.
 
Let's stop playing games. You know you cannot let the name Jehovah pass your lips without shuddering because of your hate for His Witnesses.  Like I said, it tells me a lot.

At the risk of beating the drum. I'm always suspicious when people avoid using "Jehovah". The argument about not knowing the exact pronunciation would then apply to Jehoshaphat, Jehoram or pretty much any name in the Hebrew scriptures, but for some reason the punctiliousness is applied only to "Jehovah". The reason is that God's name tastes bad in their mouths.

Yeah. He said it in a very placating soothing way, like if he was patting a child on the head. I thought, wow, Satan sure knows how to lull people into "blissful ignorance". 

Yeah. He said it in a very placating soothing way, like if he was patting a child on the head. I thought, wow, Satan sure knows how to lull people into "blissful ignorance". 

It was written that way, but it sure wasn't pronounced like that. It was pronounced in ancient Hebrew with pertinent syllables. We speak English. Each language pronounces names differently. Jehovah understands all languages of the world, including his name in that language. 
But we've gone through all of this before....
So my observation seems correct

A while ago I watched an interview that was made in the 80's with an ex-elder in Ireland who became dissatisfied with the way the organization was running things. He succeeded in getting a large following. This period of time was even mentioned in one of the yearbooks that talked about Ireland. Anyway, most of the interview was about his gripes with this and that, the usual, but what struck me was that at the end of the interview he was encouraging others who had doubts: not to worry about trying to do things God's way, because God doesn't mind if we get things wrong, and if we happen to feel closer to Jesus, and start praying to him, and worshipping him, then God will be ok with that too.
(Paraphrased, and I have mentioned this on the forum before)

A while ago I watched an interview that was made in the 80's with an ex-elder in Ireland who became dissatisfied with the way the organization was running things. He succeeded in getting a large following. This period of time was even mentioned in one of the yearbooks that talked about Ireland. Anyway, most of the interview was about his gripes with this and that, the usual, but what struck me was that at the end of the interview he was encouraging others who had doubts: not to worry about trying to do things God's way, because God doesn't mind if we get things wrong, and if we happen to feel closer to Jesus, and start praying to him, and worshipping him, then God will be ok with that too.
(Paraphrased, and I have mentioned this on the forum before)

The Jewish astrophysicist I studied with would often make profound statements. He said "X, to the extent something or someone is evil, to that extent they are predictable and this for the rejection of free will."
I see a bot-like response pattern to opposers, one with which they are unaware of (the physical man vs the spiritual man "who indeed examines all things"). I argue (if I do at all) that three syllables were likely in the divine name (by comparison to similar names) and that it is perfectly correct to use "Jehovah". If we can't use "Jehovah" then we can't use any of these other Hebrew scripture names. We do and opposers do, so we see the motives. They don't want you to use God's name. They rationalize their reasons, but underlying this is that they have become subject to the air that is operating in the sons of disobedience.

Me too! And I've noticed that the majority of those who leave, stop using it. To me that says a lot.

I had the same feeling! I remember thinking; couldn't they have picked a better example.. But it's been a while so I can't remember. I will take a look at the transcripts when I have time. I hope Thinking will be able to give us some insight....I too thought she was a he at first, until a private conversation. 

Of course. You commendably refrain from ad hominem attacks, but I don’t. He is such a do-do. In any group of several million people, you will find many examples of anything. One must run the comparative numbers before reaching any verdict. You don’t reach your verdict first then ask around to assemble buttressing facts.
 
There is probably something unsavoringly sexist about this remark. Having said that, I thought the same. If sexist, it is not necessarily in an unflattering way, as in supposing women don’t think. With me, and probably with you, it was in a complimentary way, as in men are so likely to bluster on about their overpowering thinking ability, but women, though they will think every bit as much, seldom make such a display about it. 
She has favored me with a direct message or two. She has a background and brings much to the table. She says she personally knows Witness and gives me insight on that one.
 

Me too! And I've noticed that the majority of those who leave, stop using it. To me that says a lot.

I already put it in context: As long as this “channel” is in line with Bible principles, then Christians can have confidence in it can’t they?  Your context is erroneous, because it is up to us to make sure that they are in line with Bible principles (make sure of all things) If we did not make sure, then we would just be like any other people who have confidence in anyone who claims to be a prophet or “channel” from God. Why not have confidence in Charles Manson, Jim Jones or David Koresh? Many people did.
I have for a while seen a pattern emerge with ex-Witnesses. It always seems to be those who have not done their research, who have not made sure of all things, who have not “made the truth their own". They had put all their confidence not in the Bible, but in imperfect men, who are fallible and make mistakes. Then when the mistakes of these men disappoint them, then they lose their confidence in them, (which is not surprising of course) and leave. But had they (the ex-JWs) been reasonable, and remembered that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) they may have been able to figure things out, work things trough, like the rest of us have. It doesn’t matter if they are anointed and so full of holy spirit till it pours out of their ears. They are still imperfect and make mistakes. Just like ALL the faithful men and women in Bible times. The only one who could claim perfection was Jesus. And yet Jesus dealt with all these imperfect people. Why? Because they wanted to follow him. They wanted to be his disciples and let Jesus teach and guide them. So, when the GB want to follow Jesus, and want to be his disciples, and want to encourage others to be his disciples, they will allow Jesus to teach them and guide them. This is why they will want to base everything on the Scriptures, because this is where the teachings and guidance from Jesus is found. In the ARC hearing, one of the councilors was puzzled, and even a bit upset that the JWs want to follow ancient guidelines from 2000 years ago. I rest my case.
 

I already put it in context: As long as this “channel” is in line with Bible principles, then Christians can have confidence in it can’t they?  Your context is erroneous, because it is up to us to make sure that they are in line with Bible principles (make sure of all things) If we did not make sure, then we would just be like any other people who have confidence in anyone who claims to be a prophet or “channel” from God. Why not have confidence in Charles Manson, Jim Jones or David Koresh? Many people did.
I have for a while seen a pattern emerge with ex-Witnesses. It always seems to be those who have not done their research, who have not made sure of all things, who have not “made the truth their own". They had put all their confidence not in the Bible, but in imperfect men, who are fallible and make mistakes. Then when the mistakes of these men disappoint them, then they lose their confidence in them, (which is not surprising of course) and leave. But had they (the ex-JWs) been reasonable, and remembered that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) they may have been able to figure things out, work things trough, like the rest of us have. It doesn’t matter if they are anointed and so full of holy spirit till it pours out of their ears. They are still imperfect and make mistakes. Just like ALL the faithful men and women in Bible times. The only one who could claim perfection was Jesus. And yet Jesus dealt with all these imperfect people. Why? Because they wanted to follow him. They wanted to be his disciples and let Jesus teach and guide them. So, when the GB want to follow Jesus, and want to be his disciples, and want to encourage others to be his disciples, they will allow Jesus to teach them and guide them. This is why they will want to base everything on the Scriptures, because this is where the teachings and guidance from Jesus is found. In the ARC hearing, one of the councilors was puzzled, and even a bit upset that the JWs want to follow ancient guidelines from 2000 years ago. I rest my case.
 

Me too! And I've noticed that the majority of those who leave, stop using it. To me that says a lot.

Me too! And I've noticed that the majority of those who leave, stop using it. To me that says a lot.

Yes. Of course. He will be merging “Almighty God” with Jesus Chrst presently, if he hasn’t already, and it may not be long after that he sends “Almighty God” to the ash heap entirely to worship Jesus.
There is a scholar somewhere—I wish I could put my finger on it—who says that the very reason LORD began to be preferred over the name was that it facilitates a merging of the two.
Call us old-fashioned, Xero, but we belong to the club that thinks if you put your name 7000 times in your book, it means you want it there, and may not be too thrilled with those who obscure it or even take it out.
By forsaking the Name, is he not distancing himself already from that One, even as he presents himself as holiness on steroids? Is he going down the path of what he does to you, calling you ex-elder, or what CC does to JWI, calling him ex-bethelite? It is an unmistakable sign of dislike and desired distance, and that is why they do it. In discarding the name for the title, is not 4jah all but calling God “ex-confidant?” If he drops the “4Jah” for “4God” we will know for sure.
As to CC, as you know, I go back and forth with him. At the moment, (and I really hope I do not drag him in here with rebukes to all) I am inclined to think he probably is a JW, but exceedingly unbalanced, hung up on one point to the near-exclusion of others. Is there precedent? I wonder. When Phineas pierced the two love-birds through their you-know-whats, and then led the charge to slay a ton of others, did someone at some point have to lay a hand on him and say, “Not them, Phineas! They’re okay. Granted, they are a little squirrelly, but we can put up with them. They have some good in them.” We may just have to put up with him, as we acknowledge that here and there he comes up with powerful points, and he certainly tolerates no rivalry before Jehovah. Who knows what inner turmoil people have gone through? Unless I cannot resist, I not going to squabble with him, even if he takes shots at me.
I dreamt up a fictional character and sometimes when a humanist ex-JW acts up I assign his words to Vic Vomodog, a former compatriot for whom against all reason and counsel, I still retain a soft spot, however so faint. Long ago, we used to pull shoulder to shoulder in the work. But Vic is unrelentingly atheist. He will not do for ex-JWs who still retain a recognition of God. How to solve that problem?
Meet Bob Sowmire, who will serve as the anti-type of 4jah. For some reason Vic and Bob are close—you would think they wouldn’t be able to stand each other, for they have nothing in common and have gone in mutually antagonistic ways. But like 4Jah chumming with Alan, with Srecko, with O’Malighan, with Matthew 4-5784, (you may not have had the honor with the latter two) people who in all other respects he would not be able to tolerate, but the mutual distaste of Jehovah’s people and now his Name unites them, so Vic Vomodog and Bob Sowmire are thick as thieves. 

And your experience reminds me of a man I placed magazines with a few times. Finally he said he didn’t want them anymore. His wife was allergic to newsprint, and in any event, they were moving soon.
”Oh, come on!” I thought, but didn’t say it. “What a stupid excuse! If you don’t like them, just say so.”
I few years later I met them at a District convention, both baptized. The organization had upgraded to a higher quality paper.

I'm always suspicious when people avoid using "Jehovah". The argument about not knowing the exact pronunciation would then apply to Jehoshaphat, Jehoram or pretty much any name in the Hebrew scriptures, but for some reason the punctiliousness is applied only to "Jehovah".

I already put it in context: As long as this “channel” is in line with Bible principles, then Christians can have confidence in it can’t they?  Your context is erroneous, because it is up to us to make sure that they are in line with Bible principles (make sure of all things) If we did not make sure, then we would just be like any other people who have confidence in anyone who claims to be a prophet or “channel” from God. Why not have confidence in Charles Manson, Jim Jones or David Koresh? Many people did.
I have for a while seen a pattern emerge with ex-Witnesses. It always seems to be those who have not done their research, who have not made sure of all things, who have not “made the truth their own". They had put all their confidence not in the Bible, but in imperfect men, who are fallible and make mistakes. Then when the mistakes of these men disappoint them, then they lose their confidence in them, (which is not surprising of course) and leave. But had they (the ex-JWs) been reasonable, and remembered that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) they may have been able to figure things out, work things trough, like the rest of us have. It doesn’t matter if they are anointed and so full of holy spirit till it pours out of their ears. They are still imperfect and make mistakes. Just like ALL the faithful men and women in Bible times. The only one who could claim perfection was Jesus. And yet Jesus dealt with all these imperfect people. Why? Because they wanted to follow him. They wanted to be his disciples and let Jesus teach and guide them. So, when the GB want to follow Jesus, and want to be his disciples, and want to encourage others to be his disciples, they will allow Jesus to teach them and guide them. This is why they will want to base everything on the Scriptures, because this is where the teachings and guidance from Jesus is found. In the ARC hearing, one of the councilors was puzzled, and even a bit upset that the JWs want to follow ancient guidelines from 2000 years ago. I rest my case.
 

Perhaps because Australian law says you have to keep 50 years of records, and American law says you only need to keep 25 years worth of records? I don't know. If you are so concerned about it why don't you do some proper research instead of just inventing theories of your own. I think I know what your reply will be; You can't be bothered to do research. (You would rather just read what is handed to you on a platter by opposers and stick to your own theories).

The problem is you know just enough to get confused. You do not have all the facts nor knowledge, just bits and pieces from various sources. Not only that, but also twisted information. It's like when opposers say Br. Lett said that child sexual abuse in the congregation are all apostate lies. When in fact he said that the JWs supposedly not caring about child sexual abuse are apostate lies.  One says that we deny there is child sexual abuse, and the other says there is sexual abuse and we do care about it. Big difference.