HERE IS VOL 636B  –  COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JONAH,  [2]  GOD'S ESSENCE CAN NOT CHANGE - TRINITY IMPOSSIBLE:

ALSO, VIDEO ON NATURE’S ENERGY MANAGEMENT, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/was-it-designed/Natures-Energy-Management%E2%80%8B-Was-It-Designed/


COMBINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES -    With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1]   SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [636B]

And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?  14  And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  15  Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.  16  They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.  17  For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.   Revelation 7:13 – 17, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, the Apostle John in vision saw per Revelation 7:9, [AV] “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;”  This is to occur at the culmination of the end times or great tribulation per Matthew 24:21, [AV] “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”  And as recorded at 1 John 1:7, [AV] “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”  Yes, in vision the Apostle John per Revelation 4:2, [AV] “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.”  He heard as recorded at Revelation 21:3, [AV] “And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”  Per Revelation 22:17, [AV] “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

VIEW A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO JONAH, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/jonah-introduction/


[2]       Here is a Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the Genipapo /Genip/Genipa americana

The Hair Dye You Can Eat
Huito fruit grows across the Caribbean and all the way down to Peru. When ripe, it’s popular as a flavor for preserves and ice cream, but when it’s still green the geniposidic acid it contains makes a tenacious dye when it oxidizes, dyeing anything it touches a rich blue-black. It’s popular for both temporary tattoos and hair color, and it makes a gentle alternative to henna or indigo. So if you’re looking for lush black hair color without chemical dyes, pop by your specialty grocery and see if they have any Huito. If you can’t find the fruit but want to try the dye anyway, you can also buy huito extract (it’s sometimes also called jagua) in many health food stores.
The genipap is native to wet or moist areas of Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and from Guadeloupe to Trinidad; also from southern Mexico to Panama, and from Colombia and Venezuela to Peru, Bolivia and Argentina. Its usefulness to the Indians was reported by several European writers in Brazil in the 16th Century. It is widely cultivated in dooryards as an ornamental tree and for its fruits, but Patiño stated in 1967 that it was no longer as commonly grown in the Cauca Valley of Colombia as it had been in the past. The tree first fruited in the Philippines in 1913 and is occasionally planted there. Otherwise, it is virtually unknown in the Old World. Burkill wrote that it had been tried in the southern part of the Malay Peninsula several times but without success. It is reported in Brazil that there are varieties that bear all year. There is a shrubby form, jenipaporana, or jenipapo-bravo, no more than 10 to 13 ft (3-4 m) high, that grows in swamps along the edges of rivers and lakes in Brazil. The fruit is small and inedible.

Genipap is a small to medium-sized tropical tree. It is 8 to 20 m tall, but specimens of up to 30 meters are also found. The diameter of the trunk is 30 to 80 cm and it has thick, smooth bark. It has a dense crown and the lower branches grow more or less horizontal, with 10 to 35 cm leaves at the ends. In most of Amazon Basin the trees flower in May to September and give fruit between September and April. It takes up to one year for the fruits to mature. In most trees, bees pollinate the flowers. Its fruit is a large, rounded berry, which is 9 to 15 cm long, 7 to 9 cm wide, weighing between 200 and 400 g. It has a thin and leathery covering and a 1 to 2 cm thick layer of soft, yellow-brown pulp. The central cavity contains up to 300 seeds, enclosed in membranes. The fruit is edible only when overripe and soft to the touch, when the flavor (acid to subacid) resembles that of dried apples or quinces.

In Puerto Rico, the fruit is cut up and put in a pitcher of water with sugar added to make a summer drink like lemonade. Sometimes it is allowed to ferment slightly. A bottled concentrate is served with shaved ice by street vendors. In the Philippines, also, the fruit is used to make cool drinks, as well as jelly, sherbet and ice cream. The flesh is sometimes added as a substitute for commercial pectin to aid the jelling of low-pectin fruit juices. Rural Brazilians prepare sweet preserves, sirup, a soft drink, genipapada, wine, and a potent liqueur from the fruits. Analyses made in the Philippines many years ago show the following values for the edible portion (70%) of the fruit: protein, 0.51%; carbohydrates, 11.21%; sugar, 4.30%; ash, 0.20%; malic acid, 0.63%.

The fruit is eaten as a remedy for jaundice in El Salvador. Ingested in quantity, it is said to act as a vermifuge. The fruit juice is given as a diuretic. It is a common practice in Puerto Rico to cut up the fruits, steep them in water until there is a little fermentation, then add flavoring and drink the infusion as a cold remedy. The crushed green fruit and the bark decoction are applied on venereal sores and pharyngitis. The root decoction is a strong purgative. The seeds are crushed and added to water and taken as an emetic in Brazil. When cut, the bark exudes a whitish, sweetish gum which is diluted and used as an eyewash and is claimed to alleviate corneal opacities. The juice expressed from the leaves is commonly given as a febrifuge in Central America. The flower decoction is taken as a tonic and febrifuge.

Pepperidge Farm, which, for seven years, had used artificial colorants in its colored goldfish, switched to natural dyes in July 2010. The colored goldfish are now brightened with Huito juice concentrate, annatto extract, beet juice concentrate, paprika extract, paprika, turmeric extract, and watermelon juice concentrate, instead of blue 2, red 40, red 3 and blue 1. (There is a banner on the new bags with “Colors From Natural Ingredients” written.) [sourc - retrieved from  https://zoom50.wordpress.com/   on  8/11/2015]

In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)[for more details, go to  www.jw.org].

To view this plant, go to, https://zoom50.wordpress.com/   

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT    WWW.JW.ORG

HERE IS VOL 638B  –  COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MICAH,  [2]  TRINITARIANS HOLD TO AN IMPOSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL EQUALITY IN TWO WAYS:

ALSO, VIDEO ON DOES GOD HAVE A NAME, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/FeaturedLibraryVideos/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO


COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  TRINITARIANS HOLD TO AN IMPOSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL EQUALITY IN TWO WAYS:

[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [638B]

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.  13  These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.  14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.   Revelation 17:12 – 14, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, as Daniel revealed at Daniel 7:24, [AV] “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.”  As shown at Psalms 2:2 - 3, [AV] “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,  3  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”  Yes, Jesus (Yeshua) will at this day remove the sins of the earth per John 1:29, [AV] “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”  As shown at Acts 2:36, [AV] “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”  This Jesus (Yeshua) will execute against Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) enemies at the conclusion of the end times as prophesied at Revelation 19:15, [AV] “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” 

VIEW A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO MICAH, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/micah-introduction/



[2]       TRINITARIANS HOLD TO AN IMPOSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL EQUALITY IN TWO WAYS:

INTRODUCTION:

As we all know, regular mathematics holds to a strict 1 to 1 equalization.    But Trinitarians try to even twist addition with an equivocity spin on addition that is ignorant beyond belief.   

In addition, they claim -  "Jesus = God" which the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible, at numerous places shows is clearly impossible.   They come up with all types of far fetched arguments to back up their ignorant claims.   In fact, one scripture that clearly shows them in error in two ways, they actually try and use to support their absurd creedal theory.   Let's look at the for a moment before getting into mathematical and grammatical facts that completely prove them wrong.

Take John 1:1-2, "Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
2 The same, was originally, with God." (Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB).

First point - It is obviously a defective/bad/biased translational construct as you can not be with someone and be that someone at the same time.

Second point - To have a trinity of anything, you must have three things, usually alike, but in these scriptures, even thought they are an obviously a defective/bad/biased translational construct, [b]you only have two, hence no trinity of anything.   So much for their ignorant claims.

Now let's look at language in conjunction with mathematics.

FACTS OF LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS AND BEARING ON TRANSLATION:

The best translations of the Bible are based on the univocity approach used by many translators of literal Bible translations.   Although this approach is best in most instances, but must be deviated from when context require.   Of course I understand what some are saying with respect a univocity approach to translation, but even those insisting on a strict univocity approach to translation such as the Translation Committee of the New World Translation (NWT), and the great German translator Dr. J.J. Griesbach, both recognize because of the 'fluid' nature of language - content must govern rather than a univocity approach.   Unfortunately, language does not hold to a 1 to 1 equalization all the time as does most parts of mathematics - even in mathematics there are exceptions such as quadratic equations that can have more than one answer.   Even with the part of mathematics that does hold to a strict 1 to 1 equalization - addition - some try and claim an exception. take 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 as we all know from grade school math, but there are those, as most well know, that claim 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 - clearly an impossibility - only held by Trinitarians.   Now we well know that addition is not fluid like language, but Trinitarians try and put an equivocity spin on addition - how ignorant.

But as said in the introduction, "But Trinitarians try to even twist addition with an equivocity spin on addition that is ignorant beyond belief."

Now let's look at some scriptures that clearly show the Trinitarian approach to understanding the scriptures that says,

"Jesus = God"  absurd theory,

is without any  Biblical foundation when the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible is considered even at its simplest level. 

EVEN A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE PROVES TRINITARIANS CONTENTION IMPOSSIBLE:

First, The inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible, clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, after his resurrection by his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, was given the most prominent position - at his Father's right or at the right-hand of his Father's throne.   Clearly delienating the fact that He, Jesus (Yeshua), was [b]not his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, but his Father's only begotten Son as shown many places in the Bible, as follows from the Rotherham Bible of 1902; (RB) :

Mark 16:19 The Lord [[Jesus]], therefore, on the one hand, after talking with them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God:

Acts 2:33 By the right hand of God, therefore, having been exalted, also, the promise of the Holy Spirit, having received from the Father, He hath poured out this which, yourselves, do see and hear.

Acts 7:55 But he, being already full of Holy Spirit, looking steadfastly into heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God;

Acts 7:56 And said--Lo! I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man, standing, on the right hand of God.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? Christ [[Jesus]] who died?--Nay! rather was raised [[from among the dead]], --who is on the right hand of God, who also is making intercession in our behalf?

Colossians 3:1 If, therefore, ye have been raised together with the Christ, the things on high, be seeking, where, the Christ, is--on the right hand of God, sitting;

Hebrews 10:12 But this priest, having offered one sacrifice for sins evermore, sat down on the right hand of God:

1Peter 3:22 Who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers, having been made subject unto him.

All clearly showing he is the Son of God and NOT his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Almighty God.

So the Trinitarian's equation that says either 'Jesus or the "word*1"  = God' is invalid prima facia.

*1 = First, I think the word "Logos" would make a better translation of the original Koine Greek that "word" in these scriptures, but of course that point is arguable. Yet an encyclopedia says:

<<<"Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word "Logos" to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into Chinese have used the word "Tao (?)" to translate the "Logos" in a provocative way.

Gordon Clark famously translated Logos as "Logic" in the opening verses of the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were contained in the Bible itself and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian worldview.

On April 1, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who would become Pope Benedict XVI just over two weeks later) referred to the Christian religion as the religion of the Logos:

Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the "Logos." It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, other than a "sub-product," on occasion even harmful of its development or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play, despite the fact that many today consider only the first thesis as the only modern and rational one par excellence. However, a reason that springs from the irrational, and that is, in the final analysis, itself irrational, does not constitute a solution for our problems. Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way. In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the "Logos," from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] >>>.

But in any case whether you hold for "logos" or "word" it clearly refers to the Son of God, who according to the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible, now sits at his Father's right hand per the scriptures, some of which follow, all from the Rotherham Bible of 1902; (RB) :

Second, As we all well know, many people clearly saw Jesus (Yeshua) when he was on earth, once more showing that he can not be the same as his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is.   The Bible clearly shows the Father, God, as always being invisible as follows:

John 1:18 says, "No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted him." (Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB). Now if you haven't seen him and no one else how can you possibly claim he came to earth as a man, just ridicules.

Exodus 33:20, "But he said--Thou canst not see my face,--For no son of earth can see me, and live." (RB). If one can not see his face and live, where do you find an account of mass dyings from people beholding it?  But many did see his onlybegoten son, jesus (Yeshua) and NOT die.

1 Timothy 1:17, "Now, unto the King of the ages,--incorruptible, invisible, alone God, be honour and glory, unto the ages of ages, Amen!" (RB). Now if the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, is invisible how would you know if he were on earth in any form?

I think the Trinitarians have a lot of answering to do for contradicting the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, word, the Bible.

Third, Many Trinitarians will point to John 10:30 where it says, "I and the Father, are, one." (RB).   Yet, they never say how they are one since it is not in being, but purpose.   Let's look at the facts:

This is an interesting scripture, and taken alone out of context could lead the unsteadfast to the false conclusion that they were one in body, but taken in contest, this would be seen as impossible. In John 10:29, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly showed they were two separate individuals, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (New Smerican Standard Bible, NASB). Clearly here was a giver, the Father (YHWH) whom Jesus (Yeshua) publically declared was "greater than all" which statement would include being greater than himself, Jesus (Yeshua). Also, there was a receiver, a distinct individual, "has given them to Me."

This 'one' is one in purpose and this is made clear at John 17:9-11, " "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. Which not only shows Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) as being one in prupose, but also, all the true Christian followers of his Son (Yeshua).

As previously mentioned, many try and misuse this scripture, John 10:30, to support either a Duality or a Trinity; however, it supports neither and especially not a Trinity as only two individual beings are mentioned in it.

With respect a Trinity, Jay P. Green's, "Classic Bible Dictionary," says, "This is not itself a Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to the whole concept under one word." [Classic Bible Dictionary," by Jay P. Green, page 483]. Another renown work says, "Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one G-d, the Scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us." [Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature," under Trinity, on page 553]. In other words, this false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the Trinity is a revealed doctrine of men that is foreign to the scripture (Bible). It is to be outright rejected by all who are true followers of Jesus (Yeshua).

Fourth, Of course, if  Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father, Almighty God, were one God or being, then John 5:22 would be null and void,  "For neither doth, the Father, judge anyone,--but, all the judging, hath given unto the Son:" (Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB); as would 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).   How so?   One can not be a mediator between two entities and be one of those entities.

CONCLUSION:

Trinitarians try to cover up the short comings of their false the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, dishonoring creedal doctrine by obfuscation and "throwing smoke" with very involved reasoning and quotes of such men as so called St. Augustine, but the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible as just shown keeps it simple and clearly shows this doctrine for what it is, a pagan impossible doctrine in keeping with 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV).   Trinitarians do not believe in the ‘KISS' principle (keep it simple stupid) since it would prove them stupid if applied to their false creedal doctrine of,  "Jesus = God."

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT   WWW.JW.ORG[/b]

HERE IS VOL 639B  –  COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NAHUM,  [2]  THE SABBATH AND APOSTASY:

ALSO, VIDEO ON DOES GOD HAVE A NAME, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/FeaturedLibraryVideos/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO


COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]    THE SABBATH AND APOSTASY:

[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [639B]

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.   Revelation 19:11, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

This scripture shows how individuals conditions will be at the conclusion of the end times, and how Jesus (Yeshua) will go forth at this time per Revelation 6:2, [AV] “And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”  The righteous and the holy at this time will come under his rule as the ruler of God’s kingdom per Hebrews 3:6, [AV] “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”  Yes, Jesus (Yeshua) is truly God’s only begotten son and the beginning of Almighty God (YHWH) creative works per Revelation 3:14, [AV] “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;”  And as revealed at Hebrews 1:8 - 9, [AV] “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.  9  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

TO VIEW INTRODUCTION TO NAHUM, CLICKOR POST IN BROWSER, THE FOLLOWING: 
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/nahum-introduction/

[2]       THE SABBATH AND APOSTASY:

Here is a Commentary on Exodus 20:8 covering the Sabbath, read and learn about apostacy:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

INTRODUCTION:

Keeping the Sabbath, on the seventh day, was the Fourth Commandment; which followed the Third Commandment which said, Exodus 20:7, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (AV).

PROTESTANT CHURCH ACCEPTED CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, HOOK LINE AND SINKER:
The Protestant church movement came out of the reformation on the basis the Roman Catholic was in gross error, but they accepted many of the wrong beliefs, doctrines, and myths of the Catholic church even when they directly went against the Word of God. Some of these were the Trinity, Christmas (the concept that Christ was born on December 25, which he was not), Sunday is the Sabbath (which it is not), etc. But let's deal just with the matter of the Sabbath or the seventh-day and not the other gross errors that the Protestants accepted as gospel from the Roman Catholics.

Today almost all Protestant churches celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday as we all know. However, Sunday is NOT the seventh-day of the week, but the first day of the week whose name actually means the Sun's day from ancient Roman pagan practices. Are you aware that the same nonsense unsupported arguments employed against the true Sabbath are also used in an attempt to refute the truth with respect God's (YHWH's) name which is often said as Yahweh in English. Even the Protestant King James Bible at Exodus 20:7 says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain;" but neglects to use either of his common names in English or the four letters from Hebrew which represent it, YHWH. This is wrong as are those contentions against the Sabbath being on the seventh-day.

Let's consider why the Sabbath was established by Yahweh himself on the seventh-day. This was stated at Genesis 2:2-3, "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (AV); And in the New Testament at Acts 13:42-44 the Sabbath is shown as still in effect, "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (AV).

Nowhere does God (YHWH) give man the prerogative to make any day he wants the Sabbath or holy day. However, leaders of an apostate church without any authority from God (YHWH) took it upon themselves to change it at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD from Saturday (the true Sabbath day) to Sunday (the Day of the Sun) so as to compromise with the Roman pagans to please a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, a Worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. Why did this emperor want it changed? He wanted the Sabbath day changed to coincide with the holy day of the worshippers of the Unconquered Sun, i.e., Sunday. How and why did he bring about this God (YHWH) defying act?

The reason was the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (*1). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*2).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*3).

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality and to have the pagan holy day of the Unconquered Sun declared the Sabbath. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*4).

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).

The Roman Catholic church even admits that it alone authorized the change. Note: "Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the church [Roman Catholic] outside the Bible" (*5). Also, the proceedings of the Council of Nicea of 325 AD openly declare that they have changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. (*6). Also, Dr. Edward Hiscox, the author of 'The Baptist Manual, states, "There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was NOT Sunday.....It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week...where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament." So we can clearly see from a Protestant source that they know the correct day of the week for the true Sabbath, but have accepted the day assigned by an apostate church, while knowing of the wrong, hook-line-and-sinker; thereby, joining and accepting the products of apostasy.

Of course, we can not earn salvation through any special day. Salvation is a gift from God (YHWH) and the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua). He does, however, give this gift to whom he considers worthy due to their obedience, and denies it to the disobedient. The Apostle Paul brought this fact out at Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (AV); On the other hand, he wrote, 1 Corinthians 6:9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." (AV).

CONCLUSION:

As can readily be seen, the apostate church on their own switched the Sabbath from the God (YHWH) appointed day of Saturday (which actually means Sabbath as can readily be ascertained if you look at that day in the Spanish language, Sabado) to Sunday (the Day of the Sun) without any authority from God (YHWH) to do so. In other words they usurped God's (YHWH's) exclusive prerogative in an extreme act of defiance and disobedience; And most of the Protestants went along with this brazen act of defiance against the rights of Almighty God (YHWH) and adopted the fruits of this defiant, disobedient act by the apostate church they claim to rail against for themselves. This shows disobedience on the part of all who accept this lie and act of defiance and disobedience.

REFERENCES:

*1 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*2 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*3 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*4 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*5 - Catholic Verginian, October 3, 1947.
*6 - Proceedings of the First Great Church Council at Nicea in 325 AD.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT   WWW.JW.ORG

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219681225015715&set=a.10213830940482258

HERE IS VOL 641B  –  COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ZEPHANIAH,  [2]  JEWISH SUPERSTITION CAUSES SUBSTITUTION FOR GOD'S NAME:

ALSO, VIDEO ON DOES GOD HAVE A NAME, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/FeaturedLibraryVideos/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO


COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] JEWISH SUPERSTITION CAUSES SUBSTITUTION FOR GOD'S NAME:

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [641B] 

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. Revelation 17:12 – 14, [authorized King James Bible; AV] 

Yes, as Daniel revealed at Daniel 7:24, [AV] “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.” As shown at Psalms 2:2 - 3, [AV] “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” Yes, Jesus (Yeshua) will at this day remove the sins of the earth per John 1:29, [AV] “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” As shown at Acts 2:36, [AV] “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This Jesus (Yeshua) will execute against Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) enemies at the conclusion of the end times as prophesied at Revelation 19:15, [AV] “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” 

TO VIEW INTRODUCTION TO ZEPHANIAH, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER, THE FOLLOWING:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/zephaniah-introduction/

[2] JEWISH SUPERSTITION CAUSES SUBSTITUTION FOR GOD'S NAME:

A Jewish superstition caused Almighty God's (YHWH's) name to be substituted with substitutes in many ancient scrolls, and the un-steadfast wrestle with these instead of trying to gain understanding, but some translations have put the proper name back in where it belongs such as the American Standard Version, ASV; and The Restored Name Bible, and the New World Translation, NWT; and is some places The Living Bible or Holman Standard Christian Bible as either Jehovah or Yahweh where the Tetragrammaton or God's name (YHWH) was in the original. We shall now consider some places in the Bible where this occurred:

Psalm 33:6:
King James Bible, AV: "Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O lord, thou preservest man and beast."
American Standard Version, ASV: "Thy righteousness is like the mountains of God; Thy judgments are a gread deep: O Jehovah, thou preservest man and beast."

Isaiah 42:5:
AV: "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:"
ASV: "Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:"

Isaiah 44:24:
AV: "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I (am) the Lord that maketh all (things); that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself:'
ASV: "Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?)"

[for brevity, only pertinent parts of the scripture will be given from here on, but the reader is urged to go check them out in both the King James Bible, AV; and the American Standard Version, ASV]

Genesis 21:33: 
AV: "....the Lord, the everlasting God."
ASV: "...the name of Jehovah, the Everlasting God."

Psalm 93:2-3:
AV: "Thy throne is.... 3 The floods have lifted up, O Lord, the floods...."
ASV: "Thy throne is .... 3 The floods have lifted up, O Jehovah, the floodw...."

Isaiah 40:28:
AV: "....the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator...."
ASV: "....The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator...."


Isaiah 44:6:
AV: "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of host;...."
ASV: "Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts:...."

Habakkuk 1:12:
AV: "(Art) thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God,...."
ASV

: "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God,...."

Malachi 3:6:
AV: "For I (am) the Lord, I change not...."
ASV: "For I, Jehovah, change not...."

So while some claim that these scriptures refer and many others refer to Jesus (Yeshua) in a vain attempt to make Jesus (Yeshua) Almighty God (YHWH); they do NOT refer to him and those claiming otherwise are deceiving themselves and others who listen to them in support of false doctrines and myths they love instead of the Truth of God's (YHWH's) word as recorded in the Bible. Theirs is nothing a con game of logomachy or in other words a 'rip-off' of deceit. Most of these really refer to the Biblical fact that God (YHWH) alone is eternal and uncreated; whereas, his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) is the first of creation as testified to at Colossians 1:15, "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:" or as rendered in the Catholic, Confraternity Edition of The New Testament; (CENTN), "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." (CENTN)or in Revelation (Apocalypse) 3:14, "'And to the angel of the church at Laodicea write: Thus says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God." (CENTN). Therefore we should be on guard as directed at Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV). So we can clearly see not all religions would be acceptable to God (YHWH) as they definitely all are not worshipping him in "spirit and in truth;" however, we must "worship him in spirit and in truth." As shown at John 4:23-24, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Authorized King James Bible, AV). Thus in order to be counted worthy for salvation we must be very careful to do so.

APPENDIX:

YHWH/JEHOVAH: The name of God . 
All the gods of World Religion have a name. Every single deity has a personal name. Islam worships Allah. Buddhism has various"Buddified" deities in association with Siddhartha Buddha. Hinduism has the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; and even Krishna as Supreme personality of godhead. In ancient times, the Egyptians directly worshiped their gods using personal names. The ancient Greek had Zeus, who later became Jupiter to the Romans, as their chief deity. The Babylonians had Nebo their god of wisdom and agriculture; and Marduk. The inhabitants of ancient Canaan worshiped Baal; who was basically their god of fertility. Without Baal's blessings, the Canaanites believed Mot - a vindictive Canaanite god, would bring disaster upon them. Zoroastrians worshiped their god Ahura Mazda. In Egyptian worship the god of the dead was Anubis and Osiris was the chief god ofthe underworld. What about the God of the Old Testament; did he have a name? The answer is yes; apart from his title of El•o•him [God], he has a personal name. El•o•him is actually a Hebrew word in plural form, used by the Bible writers to express grandeur and supreme sovereignty. In a similar manner, the monarchs of Europe apply this routine when they refer to themselves as "we" and not "I". In ancient times, there was fierce competition between gods. Indeed the God of Israel had to contend for the loyalty of the Israelites with other gods. In Canaan He had to continuously punish the Israelites who kept deviating to worshiping the aforementioned Baal.

In this atmosphere, a God not having a name could not have gained fame. The Israelites knew and freely used God's personal name. In the Hebrew language, God's name is written YHWH. These four letters are commonly called the Tetragrammaton. The Bible actually encourages God's name to be in wide appropriate use - [Exodus 3:15; Proverbs 18:10; Isaiah 12:4; Zephaniah
3:9] God's personal name actually appears almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew scriptures. Why now do we not know the correct pronunciation of God's personal name; the name of Jesus' Father? By the 1st century CE the Jews developed a superstition about God's name. Not only did they stop using God's name, but forbade its pronunciation altogether. Commentaries supplementing scriptural laws, based on explanations by rabbis came to be in writing. From these, an unscriptural book known as the Mishnah began forbidding God's name from being spoken - [Sanhedrin 10:1] This book began circulating with the Jews in the late second and early third century CE. Even today, Jews strictly forbid the uttering of the divine name. By this act of the Jews, deliberately or otherwise, the correct pronunciation of God's name seems almost lost. However, many names of people and places mentioned in the Bible contain an abbreviated form of the divine name. Using these, one can arrive at an educated guess on the proper pronunciation. The pronunciation of Biblical names have survived intact throughout the centuries. "In ancient times, parents often named their children after their deities. That means that they would have pronounced their children's names the way the deity's name was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was used in people's names, and they always used the middle vowel" - George Buchanan, professor emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary,Washington D.C., U.S.A.

Let us consider a few of these examples of proper names found in the Bible that includes a shortenedform of God's name: 
Jehoaddah (YEHOADDA)- Jehovah (YHWH)has decked himself
Jehoaddan (YEHOADDAN)-Jehovah (YHWH)is pleasure 
Jehoahaz (YEHOAHAZ)- May Jehovah (YHWH)take hold
Jehoash (YEHOAS)- Jehovah (YHWH)has been gracious 
Jehohanan (YEHOHANAN)- Jehovah (YHWH)has shown favor
Jehoiachin (YEHOYAKIN)- Jehovah (YHWH)has firmly established
Jehoiada (YEHOYADA)- May Jehovah (YHWH)Know 
Jehoiakim (YEHOYAQIM)- Jehovah (YHWH)raises up 
Jehoiarib (YEHOYARIB)- May Jehovah (YHWH)contend 
Jehonadab (YEHONADAB)- Jah is willing; noble; generous
Jehonathan (YEHONATHAN)- Jehovah (YHWH)has given 
Jehoram (YEHORAM)- Jehovah (YHWH)is high; exalted 
Jehoshabeath (YEHOSABAT)- Jehovah (YHWH)is plenty 
Jehoshaphat (YEHOSAPAT)- Jehovah (YHWH)is judge 
Jehosheba (YEHOSEBA)- Jehovah (YHWH)is plenty 
Jehoshua (YEHOSUA)- Jehovah (YHWH)is Salvation 
Jehozabad (YEHOZABAD)- Jehovah (YHWH)has endowed 
Jehozadak (YEHOSADAQ)- Jehovah (YHWH)pronounces righteous 

Jonathan, which appears as Yoh_na_than or Yehoh_na_than in the Hebrew Bible; means "Yaho or Yahowah has given" -according to professor Buchanan.

The prophet Elijah's name is 'E_li_yah' or E_li_yah_hu in Hebrew; meaning "My God is Yahoo or Yahoo_wah." Similarly, Jehoshaphat is Yehoh_sha_phat', meaning "Yaho has judged" - the professor explains. A two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" would not allow for the "o" vowel sound to exist as part of God's name. But in the dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and shortened form; such as Jehonathan and Jonathan. Thus, Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name: "In no case is the vowel "oo" or "oh" omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as "Ya", but never as "Ya_weh"...in one syllable it was "Yah" or "Yo". When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been "Yahowah" or "Yahoowah". If it was ever abbreviated to two syllable it would have been "Yaho" - [Biblical Archaeological Review] 

Usually, God's name is presented as fundamental in the monotheistic religions, but its pronunciation is controversial (YeHoWaH, Yahve, Jehovah,...). However, the key to unlock this mystery was provided by the famous Maimonides 800 years ago, when he wrote that the Name of God (the tetragram YHWH) "is read as it is written". The paradox starts and ends here with these intriguing words. THE NAME OF GOD Y_EH_OW_AH WHICH IS PRONOUNCED AS IT IS WRITTEN I_EH_OU_AH. Gérard Gertoux, University Press of America,® Inc Lanham _ New York _ Oxford "How God's Name Was Pronounced Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar./Apr. 1995 Volume 21Number 2; page 30: 1-Among the magical papyri the name appears as IAWOUHE (Ya_oh_oo_ay_eh), but it is difficult to know how much this pronunciation had to do with the Tetragrammaton...so it is not certain how many of these syllables were thought to belong to the name. At least, however, it has more syllables than two, and the central vowel is not omitted, as is done in Yah-weh. However, if the word were spelled with four letters in Moses' day, we would expect it to have had more than two syllables, for at that period there were no vowel letters. All the letters were sounded. At the end of the OT period the Elephantine papyri write the word YHW to be read either yahu (as in names like Shemayahu) or yaho (as in names like Jehozadek). The pronunciation yaho would be favored by the later Greek from iao found in Qumran Greek fragments (2d or 1stcenturies B.C.) and in Gnostic materials of the first Christian enturies.-Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament There was only one group in antiquity to pronounce the divine name similar to the popular form, 'Yahweh." And this only because Theodoret (fifth-century CE Antiochene theologioan) claimed that the Samaritans pronounced the divine name as Iahe. But, "all other examples [from antiquity] maintain the middle vowel. George Buchanan, "How Gods Name Was Pronounced" BAR21.2 (March-April 1995, 31-32.

Also arguing for a trisyllable pronounciation is David Thomas: "It is sometimes argued that the form Jehovah is a made-up composite form which bears little
resemblance to Yahweh, the presumed Hebrew pronunciation...If we accept Yitschak=Isaac without any problem, this appears to be 'straining at the gnat'.-"A Further Note on YHWH" BT 44.4(October 1993), 444-445

"In the history of the English language however, the letter J has a written counterpart in the German J, although the latter J in German is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of theological studies having come from the German sources, there has been an intermixed usage in English of the J and the Y. Our
English translations of the bible reflect this, so we have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than Yahweh, because this is established English usage for
Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters. No one suggests that we ought to change Jacob, Joseph, Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y, and neither should we at this late date change Jehovah to Yahweh." -Bible Translator Jay P. Green, Sr. Johann David Michaelis in his German translation of the Old Testament of the eighteenth century...said in part: "On the other hand, the name Jehovah (YHWH)[Jehova in German] is used. . . . so I considered it to be a matter of integrity in translation to identify it, even though it might not always be pleasing to the German ear." ....Several of my friends insisted that I not at all insert this foreign word. . . Jehovah (YHWH)is a Nomen Proprium, and, just as properly as I retain other nomina propria [such as] Abraham, Isaac, Jacob... In the translation of a classical author one would not have the slightest hesitance toward the use of the names Jupiter, Apollo and Diana; and why then should the name of the Only True God sound moreoffensive? I do not therefore see why I should not use the name Jehovah (YHWH)in the German Bible." 

In English, the shout of "Hallelujah" means "Praise Jah you people." The Jah comes from the one syllable Hebrew translation of the divine name to Yah. Hence, God's name in English is Jehovah; from the above Yahowah. The personal name is the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb ha•wah' [become]; meaning "He Causes to Become".

However, if we are reasonably confident of Gods true name in its original Hebrew language, is it acceptable to use its English equivalent? Absolutely. Francis B. Denio, who studied and taught Hebrew for 40 years says: "Jehovah (YHWH) misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same is true of Jehovah. It is not barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For centuries it has been gathering these connotations. No other word approaches this name in fulness of associations required. The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a translation." On the Use of the Word Jehovah, JBL 46, 1927, 147-148 

On the name "Jehovah" the Catholic Encyclopedia states: (1913) http://www.newadvent.org) "Jehovah: The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name,.... Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745).

PROBABLY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH ANTEDATES EVEN R. MARTIN. No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis ("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524),Drach (loc. cit., I, 469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache,327), and others." So, God's name was most probably pronounced Yehowah or Yahoowah before man's traditions deemed itunutterable. Today, the name Jehovah (YHWH)is absolutely acceptable when referring to YWHW, the Almighty God of the Bible. And we can see that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only people to recognize Jehovah (YHWH)as the proper English name for identifying the True God. Nor are Jehovah's Witnesses the only people to use the Divine Name "Jehovah" in their Bible(NWT) either. 

The King James Version uses Jehovah (YHWH)at Ex.6:3,Ps.83:18, Is.12:2;26:4 
The American Standard Version uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
Young's Literal Translation uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
The Holy Bible by J.N.Darby uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
The Literal Translation/King James 2 Version by Jay P. Green uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
The Recovery Version by Livings Dreams Ministry use sJehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
The New English Bible uses Jehovah (YHWH)at Exodus chapters 3 and 6. 
The Living Bible/Protestant and Catholic editions uses Jehovah (YHWH)over 300 times. 
The English Revised Version uses Jehovah (YHWH) at Ex. 6:2,3,6,7,8, Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2;26:4. 
The Bible in Living English by Byington uses Jehovah (YHWH) thousands of times. 
The Webster Bible uses Jehovah (YHWH)in the same places as the KJV above. 
The Modern Language Bible/New Berkeley Version uses Jehovah (YHWH)at Exodus 3:15; 6:3, Numbers 3:13, 45; 15:41;21:14; 35:34, Ezra 6:21; Ps. 8:1, 9; 16:2, Is 12:2; 140:7; 141:8; 147:1, Hosea 12:5, Zech. 4:10 etc. 
The Emphatic Diaglott uses Jehovah (YHWH)at Matt 21:42; 22:37, 44, 23:39, Mark 11:9 and Acts 2:34 
Boothroyd's Versions uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
S. Sharp's translation uses Jehovah (YHWH)thousands of times. 
The Reina Valera Bible uses Jehova thousands of times.
The Moderna version uses Jehova thousands of times.

At Exodus 9: 15,16 Jehovah (YHWH)stated, " For by now I could have thrust my hand out that I might strike you and your people with pestilence and that you might be effaced from the earth. But, in fact, for this case I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth." Jehovah, the author of mankinds languages (Gen 11:7), has truly made His Name, His character, the kind of being that He is(One that
will "prove to be" with his people) known to the most distant parts of the earth. And as he did with the gods of Egypt, Jehovah (YHWH) God will do again when he fulfills his promises, as written in his inspired words, "And I will bring myself into judgment with him, with pestilence and with blood: and a flooding downpour and hailstones, fire and sulphur I shall rain down upon him and upon his bands and upon the many peoples that will be with him. And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah." Eze. 38: 22,23.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW://JW.ORG

HERE IS VOL 643B  –  COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND A VIDEO ON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ZECHARIAH,  [2]  LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

ALSO, VIDEO ON MEANING OF GOD’S NAME, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/FeaturedLibraryVideos/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO


COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY, [643B]. 

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Matthew 24:21, [authorized King James Bible; AV] 

Yes, and the Bible goes on to say at Matthew 24:22, [AV] “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” And Revelation gives more insight when it mentions those who will come forth at that time from the earth at Revelation 7:13 - 15, [AV] “And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.” And book of Daniel gives us further insight on the subject of what will occur at the conclusion of the end times at Daniel 12:1, [AV] “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” 

TO VIEW INTRODUCTION TO ZECHARIAH, CLICK OR POST IN BROWSER, THE FOLLOWING:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/zechariah-introduction/


[2]       LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

Many do not realize that learning is an essential part of element of Christian life. This is made clear at Psalms 1:1-3, "1 Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence: 2 But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he shall meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit, in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), and Jesus (Yeshua ) made this quite clear when he said at Matthew 22:29, "You are mistaken, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." (The New English Bible; NEB). This was also made clear at Mark 12:24 by Jesus (Yeshua) when he said, "And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?" (DRCB).

Yet it is important that when we study the scriptures, we have an open mind willing to accept the truth as revealed in God's (YHWH's) word. Not all that read the Bible do as Jesus (Yeshua) pointed out to the religious leaders of his day who were oppossing him when he testified at John 5:39, "You study the scriptures diligently, supposing that in having them you have eternal life; yet, althouth their testimony points to me, you refuse to come to me for that life." (NEB). Likewise, there are those today who study the scriptures diligently, but due to a closed mind, never come to know the truth. Often these types spend many years in colloges and seminaries, and yet still believe pagan doctrines such as the Trinity and that the Virgin Mary remained ever a virgin. Clearly these ones are like those Jesus (Yeshua) spoke to at John 5:39, clearly as Jesus (Yeshua) said at John 5:41-43, "41 I receive not glory from men. 42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive." (DRCB). Clearly they do not give credit to Jesus (Yeshua) or his Father (YHWH), but to someone who comes in his own name.

They overlook what Jesus (Yeshua) said at John 14:28, "You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (DRCB; and at John 5:19, "Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner." (DRCB). These two scriptures clearly show that the Trinity is false doctrine since Jesus (Yeshua) shows that his Father (YHWH) is the greater one and that the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) cannot do a single thing of his own initiative; hence, no co-equality here as required by the false pagan doctrine of the trinity.

Also, the Beble clearly says at Matthew 12:46, "He was still speaking to the crowd when his mother and brothers appeared;" (NEB). These so called learned ones will then argue that these were not actually his brothers [half brothers], but cousins. However, even history shows otherwise, Flavius Josephus, wrote, "...Albinis was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..." [source = "The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus," translated by William Winston, AM; The John C. Winston Co., page 598].

APPENDIX;

Let us see what the NWT said about the Greek Grammar as applied by
them to John 1:1c:

These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike"
because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular
predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the
definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom
the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek
expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by
the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful
translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or
"divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he
was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos,
but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh
4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places
translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate
noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the
subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the
predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite
article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in
the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred
Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John
where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate
nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote
the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Reference
Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added)

To condense this issue, the NWT is saying that John1:1c should be
translated as "Indefinite" and refers to "quality" or the
"characteristic" of the subject. The word "theos" is in the predicate
position, which tells you something about the subject and precedes
the verb. This is known as "an anathrous predicate noun, proceeding
the verb."

Let us consider whether such terms exist in Greek grammar to describe
a noun (Theos/ God) that is "anathrous", meaning it is not proceeded
by the definite article ( 'O/The) and is in the "predicate" position
(says something about the subject (Logos/Word). Can such a noun be
translated as "indefinite" such as "a man" etc.

Is this Grammatically correct?

Consider:

(2) there is no indefinite article in Greek. Thus we see that
anthropos, means "man" or "a man". It does not , however , mean "the
man" because the Greek does have a definite article.... The Greek
article is used to point out particular identity. This is called the
"articular" use of a noun or other substantive. When no definite
article is used with the noun (or other substantive), it is called
"anathrous' use. The anathrous construction is used to indicate
quality or characteristics." Essentials of New Testament Greek, Ray
Summers (student of H.E. Dana), Chairman Dept of Religion Baylor
University, Waco Texas, 1950 Pg 16. (emphasis added)

"...the article is therefore ..., the definite article....It is a pointer...
Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite.
When it is not used, the object may or may not be definite..." ... "But
the rule holds whoever the subject has the article and the predicate
does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate
indefinite and undistributed." ... "The word may be either definite or
indefinite when the article is absent..." " in the predicate the
article is often absent. This is the rule unless the terms are
convertible or the predicate is singled out as prominent." A.T.
Robertson, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF
HISTORICAL RESEARCH, 1934, pgs 756, 767, 794 (emphasis added)

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or
individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs,
to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai
theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine
nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua
Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture
Institute), p. 55.(emphasis added)

From this we see that the NWT has used proper terminology and has
translated in harmony with Greek Grammar. It is not "bad grammar" at
all. Nor does it ignore the basic tenets or show "intellectual
dishonesty". Nouns without the article in the predicate position can
be, and generally are, translated as indefinite and are used to
describe, the class, quality or characteristics of the subject.

This raises the question of why any of the above would say it is bad
grammar, etc? Are they that ignorant of Biblical Greek, or are they
dishonest in their representations of the facts? You decide, as we
carry this further. 

Next we will examine point #2 to see if the NWT has used "Bad
Grammar" specifically in John 1:1c. Do the above statements apply to
John1;1c, indicating that the NWT has properly applied the rules.

To clarify the position of John 1:1c from the perspective of Greek
grammar, it is necessary to cover some basic rules of the Language.
In Greek nouns can be either:

1. Definite.

2. Indefinite . 

3. Qualitative.

What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about this scripture and how the
translate it?

These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike"
because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular
predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the
definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom
the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek
expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by
the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful
translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or
"divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he
was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos,
but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh
4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places
translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate
noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the
subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the
predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite
article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in
the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred
Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John
where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate
nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote
the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Refernce
Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added)

Note "indefinite and qualitative" In other words 2b. 

The first point the is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not indicate that
Jesus is "another God". They say he is "a god," "divine" or "godlike" 

Is this truly in harmony with the Greek language?

Consider:

B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first,
as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho
theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person... (Your reference rejecting #1 and this is 2a.)

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the
Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of
representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho
logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.
(your quote rejecting #1 and this is 2a.)

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the
Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho
theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being
existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel
According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76. (Your quote. (Totally
rejects #1 )

There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun]
is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.-Philip
Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) 

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite
["qualitative" would have been a better word choice] sense of a
divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite
absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of
Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to "the image of God''
of Paul, Col. 1:15.-G. Lucke, "Dissertation on the Logos", quoted by
John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian
Testimonies, p. 428. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the
WT on 2b.) 

There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and
'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the
reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it
is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In
effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so
the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.-The Translator's New
Testament, p. 451. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT
on 2b.) 

It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the
words of John's 'Gospel: "The Word was God". The Greek of that phrase
is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. ... There is
noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in
English, or in Greek, a noun does to have the definite article, it
becomes the equivalent of an adjective. ... So then, what the Greek
really says [means] in not "The Word was God," but "The word is in
the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life
[spiritual life] and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on "one"].
William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A.,
1975, pp. 35-6. (basically is rejecting #1 and is unclear about 2a or
2b.)

The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate
does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate
indefinite and undistributed.-A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek
New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition,
1934, p. 767. (Agrees with 2b and the WT) 

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or
individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs,
to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai
theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine
nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua
Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture
Institute), p. 55. ( Rejects #1 and agrees with 2b as does the WT)

In John 1:1...Theos en ("was deity");...The qualitative force is
obvious and most important,-Alfred M. Perry, "Translating The Greek
Article" in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p.
331.(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) 

Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theos en ho
logos] could be rendered "the word was a god." This leads me to
affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from [E.C. Cowell's]
rule 2b [Journal of Biblical Literature, "A Definite Rule for the Use
of the Article in the Greek New Testament", 1933, Vol. 53, pp. 17-21]
that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually
definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in
emphasis.-Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book
House, 1992, pp. 60, 312. .(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with
the WT on 2b)
"R." <ditchbilly@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hey all! Russ here again.I just wan't to take a moment to thank
Hollis and Paul for their input on my inquirey.It was most
encouraging.Paul I can't wait to read that book.Guaranteed sale right
here.
Now in all honesty the woman that I was refering to did put up a link
to a site that had quotes from "scholars" bashing the NWT.I
have been trying to find that link but haven't as of yet.It was a
link to the blueletter bible I think.Here is one that I found just
looking around
http://www.hyperbible.com/articles/jw4.asp
here's another http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm If anyone
would care to comment on these sites or the individuals mentioned
within then I would love to hear it.Not that any of this bothers me
or anything.I just find it interesting.Anyone want a good idea for a
book?Write one about all of the biblical "scholars" with
their ups and downs.Sort of like a who's who.Give them all a rating
from best to worse.Stand back and watch the fur fly.THAT would be
interesting.
Anyhow,as I mentioned before I asked this woman about the hands in
pocket thing as well as about the credentials of these scholars but
never got an answer.Come to think of it I'm still waiting on answers
from her regarding several issues.Her usual excuses are "I'm
behind"or "I missed it" or usually no answer at
all.For about a month or more I have been waiting on an answer to one
simple question.How can you call Witnesses "wrong" for
refering to a bible that was written by a
"spiritist"(Greber) yet at the same time you have no
problem refering to a bible that was written by a
sadistic,homosexual,necrophilic,tyranic beastphile?(James 1st)Still
waiting! If anyone has any views on James then I would welcome those
also.
By the way just in case anyone is wondering all of this is on the
infamous "gathering" site.Bashers galore! Well thanks again
y'all!-Russ

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG