JW's and prophecy.....

@galveston75 said
@Rajk999
But still you do not recognize God's name. Hummmm?

Gods Name is listed in the Bible many times. Here are some details from Perplexity AI:

*********************************************
The name of God appears in many places throughout the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the most direct reference is in Exodus 3:13-15, where God reveals His name to Moses as "I AM" (Hebrew: YHWH, often rendered as "the LORD" in English translations). God says, “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Exodus 3:15). Other verses that mention or emphasize God’s name include:

Exodus 20:7: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain…”
Proverbs 18:10: “The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”
Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD: that is my name…”

In the New Testament, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” (Matthew 6:9).

The Bible also uses various titles and descriptions for God’s name, such as “the LORD,” “God Almighty,” “Father,” and, in some prophecies, “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The specific, personal name “YHWH” (sometimes transliterated as Jehovah or Yahweh) is most prominent in the Old Testament, especially in the books of Moses.

In summary, God’s name is listed in the Bible in passages such as Exodus 3:13-15, Exodus 20:7, Proverbs 18:10, Isaiah 42:8, and Matthew 6:9, among others, and is often rendered as “the LORD” or, less commonly, as “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” in English translations

***************************************************
Apparently you are the one that has failed to understand what is important. Obviously the teachings of Christ went over your head.

@galveston75 said
@Rajk999
But still you do not recognize God's name. Hummmm?

The name Jehovah was a misunderstanding by a catholic monk. You've been told this.

@moonbus said
@galveston75

God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:​10-​12


O, the irony.

No man knows the Mind of God or when the world will end, whatever you think it says in Scripture.

"No man knows the Mind of God or when the world will end, whatever you think it says in Scripture."

This IS what scripture says.

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” -- Mark 13:32, KJV

@galveston75 said
What was Jesus's name before he came to earth to be named Jesus? Of course one has to acknowledge he did exist before he was born here on earth as a human infant.
You probably don't have a clue about that fact, do you?

He was The Word.

John 1:1 KJV

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

@galveston75 said
So "whom" is the applying too? It very much indicates that "someone" would understand what the scriptures are saying, right? If no one were to ever understand the bible and every statement in it, which would be quite silly, it would be pointless to even have the bible written.
The bible was not written for angels, or for Jesus.... it was written for mankind.
BUT...... ...[text shortened]... ten down. If we pick and choose what we like and don't like...there is the problem in understanding.

The applying is those taken afoot to learn about figs. And the courteous nature becoming of man. He is raw, under process then becoming palatable. Sort of like the scripture in 1 Peter 2:2 & Corinthians 3 about milk – all teaching must be understood yet we shouldn't blame those respectfully "picking and choosing," not declining fundamentals.

@galveston75 said
So "whom" is the applying too? It very much indicates that "someone" would understand what the scriptures are saying, right? If no one were to ever understand the bible and every statement in it, which would be quite silly, it would be pointless to even have the bible written.
The bible was not written for angels, or for Jesus.... it was written for mankind.
BUT...... ...[text shortened]... ten down. If we pick and choose what we like and don't like...there is the problem in understanding.

The bible was not written for angels, or for Jesus.... it was written for mankind.

Ah, there's your error. The Bible was not written for mankind.

The Church did not intend that lay people should read the Bible. The canon was established by and for the clergy, for the purpose of imposing a unified doctrine upon what had, for the first 300 years after the death of Jesus, been a manifold. It was an 'instructor's manual' to ensure that what the clergy propagated to (mostly illiterate) lay people remained under the control of a central authority at Rome.←

The New Testament was not written for the laity. How could it have been? The movable-type printing press was not invented until halfway through the 1400s. Prior to that, writing was the province of scribes and clergy, and writing materials were scarce and precious. For the first 500 years, not every parish church would have had a copy, but only a few monasteries and abbies. The New Testament was written to teach the clergy, not the laity.←

The Bible was never intended to be read by the laity, for two reasons.

First, the laity in 325 CE when the canon was established and the Bible as we know it first came into existence, and for more than a millennium afterwards, were overwhelmingly illiterate.

Second, by 325 CE, there were many monks and priests but few bishops, so it was getting impractical for each monk and priest to be adequately prepared in doctrinal matters through one-on-one tutoring by a bishop, as Jesus had tutored the apostles. So, a canon was established by the bishops as a handbook or guide for the priesthood in order that priests in different communities should be preaching a consistent doctrine.
←
The Ecumenical Council of Toulouse (I told you about such councils before) in 1229 CE forbade private citizens from owning a Bible. In 1415, Church officials declared Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English (1381-82) heretical, and in 1455 they dug up his bones and scattered them in a river. Even as late as Sir Thomas More, people were executed in England for advocating that the laity read the Bible.←

At the time of Gutenberg, in the 15th c., the Church was vehemently opposed to the production and distribution of printed copies of the Bible being made available to all comers; the Church well knew that it would lose its monopoly on interpretation of scripture if Bibles became readily available to lay people.←

The danger of letting the laity read the Bible is that they not only want to read it for themselves, they also want to interpret it for themselves, translate it for themselves, and add newer testaments to it (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc). This opens the flood gates to all manner of heresies and wacko sects (snake handlers, branch Davidians, JWs, etc.).←

If I may be so bold as to suggest you do two things: One, read some history, find out how and when the Bible actually came to be. The Bible itself does not tell you this. You have to go to historians. Lane Fox would be a good start.

Two: find out what your religion actually requires of you. Your fixation on the Bible is misplaced. You are fixated on the menu and missing the meal.

@Suzianne said
He was The Word.

John 1:1 KJV

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Greek comparison in brackets.


In the beginning was the word (Theos) and the Word was with God (Theos) and the word was (a) god (Logos)

@Rajk999 said
And the only people who understand the bible is .... Watchtower.

We got it the first 100 times you made this claim, over the last 15 years

And the only people who understand the bible is .... Watchtower.
To be fair, does not almost every Christian sect think this about themselves?
Other than that, I agree with most what you say here.

@medullah said
Two different words meaning different things. There is a lecture some Muslim scholars give on the point in support of their position that Jesus is subservient to God.

There is a lecture some Muslim scholars give on the point in support of their position that Jesus is subservient to God.

Well, He was while in the flesh; don't you think?

@medullah said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If this is for real and not a Ghostie wind up I’d love a link ?

Hope you are all well.

All good thanks old chap. Hope you are well?


'In the original Hebrew language, God’s name as revealed to Moses at the burning bush is rendered as YHWH—or Yahweh, meaning “I Am.” Ancient Hebrew was a consonantal language (no vowels). Out of reverence for God, faithful Jews would not even speak his name, so when YHWH was written in the biblical scrolls, the scribes would write the markings for the vowel sounds a-o-a for the word adonai (“Lord” ) directly over YHWH so that anyone reading the scroll would know to say adonai rather than Yahweh. Along comes our monk and, seeing the vowel markings over YHWH, thought they were part of the actual spelling of God’s name and thus combined YHWH with a-o-a, making YaHoWaH, which eventually became “Jehovah.” So every time JWs insist on the use of God’s name, they are actually promoting a corrupted form of it.'


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-top-ten-errors-of-jehovahs-witnesses

@medullah said
Greek comparison in brackets.


In the beginning was the word (Theos) and the Word was with God (Theos) and the word was (a) god (Logos)

Hey Medullah, long time no see you around here. What you been up to?

This is not a critical doctrine in my opinion as some beleive. To be honest it is really of no significance what we believe was the status of Christ, before and after his death and resurrection. Using the Stongs Concordance, the Greek words are:

In the beginning was the Word, [G3056] and the Word [G3056] was with God, [G2316] and the Word [G3056] was God. [G2316] (Joh 1:1 KJV+)

G3056 - log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

G2316 - theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

@KingDavid403 said
There is a lecture some Muslim scholars give on the point in support of their position that Jesus is subservient to God.

Well, He was while in the flesh; don't you think?

Jesus was subject to God, in the flesh, and in the Spirit. After his ascension to heaven he was still subject to God and will remain that way for ever.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:21-28 KJV)

Clearly even now Jesus is in heaven and is subject to God. Even after the 1000 yr reign during the Kingdom, Jesus remains subject to God. After the millennium reign Jesus will still be subject to God.

Jesus is not God, is not equal to God, and is not the same. God is the head, and Jesus is the Son of God.