Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?

[Bible Highlighter]

While I am not totally against the occasional Hebrew and Greek word study, we cannot act like the Bible we have today is not valid.
The English has to align with the Hebrew and Greek. If not, then one can play the original languages game and nobody would really be the wiser because we do not know these languages like Moses (Hebrew) and the apostle Paul (Greek).

We are only making guesses as to what the Hebrew and Greek says. We did not grow up knowing these languages. In fact, God's Word (the Bible) does not teach us to look to a more ancient dead language in order to understand His Word. God always preserved His words in the languages that they spoke and understood. It's why the New Testament Scriptures are in Greek and they did not remain in Hebrew (the more ancient language). God chose to move with the times in how men spoke in that world. People today do not believe Psalms 12:6-7.

Psalms 12:6-7
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

For the moment you believe only the originals were perfect is the moment you believe no Bible exists. This is dangerous because than it is left up to the reader to decide what belongs in the Bible and what is included. It then becomes a pick and choose your own adventure Bible based on our own thinking or the thinking of others (i.e. scholars and their guesses). You either believe the Bible today, or you don't. It's that simple.

If you don't believe all of the Bible than you are a hybrid believer (Believing only the parts you want to be true while not believing other parts of the Bible because you see it as a mistake). God's Word should correct us and we should not correct the Bible. That is the problem with Modern Scholarship. It's the deception that has even taken hold of the JW religion even. Nobody can just believe the Bible in English today.

Jesus says:
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35).

 

[Wrangler]

Humility and submission to His Father is therefore a fault?

Thanks for accurately paraphrasing my post <sarcasm>.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Like you stated sir, you have a version of the Bible in your house. If you have the actual Bible, you


Jesus gave his flesh and blood in our behalf sir. You can say he took it back if you want, but I disagree. I do not agree with your watchtower sir.

And like Jesus said, He had the authority to lay down his life and to take it back again ! He got that from His Father and like Jesus also said:

John 2:18-22
King James Version

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


JESUS SAID, YOU DESTROY HIS BODY, AND IN THREE DAYS HE WOULD RAISE HIS BODY FROM THE GRAVE!!!!!!! wHEN JESUS ROSE FROM TEH DEAD PHYSICALLY, HIS DISCIPLES REMEMBERED HE SAID THIS AND BELIEVED.

JESUS SAID: DESTROY MY BODY AND IN THREE DAYS I WILL RAISE MY BODY FROM THE GRAVE!!!!

DESTROY MY BODY AND IN THREE DAYS I WILL RAISE MY BODY FROM THE GRAVE.

Don't let a man made organization steal your salvation from you by teaching you Jesus body was not raised from the grave!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You haven't and are unable to as that is not the case.

I have and now you are resorting to lying about things I have written multiple times!!!!!

 

[tigger 2]

Webers_Home (#239 above) wrote:

FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as
god in lower case instead of God in upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós (theh'-os). When it's modified by
the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós in upper
case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one
true God, while theós by itself is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18
and John 20:17 where the Society translates theós in upper case though it
not be modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho
can be either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs
in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than
dictated by a strict rule of Greek grammar.

….………………………………………………………..

The word for “god” is theos ONLY when it is used as the subject or predicate noun (as in John 1:1c).

When it is used as a direct object or the object of certain prepositions, theon is used (as in your two examples, Jn 1:18 and Jn 20:17). The definite article used with theon is ton, not ho.

theou is used as a genitive (“of god”).

So your examples are using terms that are not parallel to John’s use at Jn 1:1c. They are falsely used as examples (as do nearly all trinitarian “experts”).

We are examining the word theos as used in John 1:1c and parallel examples where the predicate noun comes before its verb in the Greek text of John’s writing.

Not only can I not get a trinitarian to do the honest research for this (it does take a lot of time and effort with an interlinear and concordance and finding the examples which can be falsely used), I cannot even get one to examine my study of this. Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity or my first and longest study Search For Bible Truths: The "Definite" John 1:1.

I have found that all uses of theos by John which are intended as “God” have the definite article with them.

And, in the second part of my studies, I found that all constructions that are parallel with John 1:1c (anarthrous predicate noun before the verb) in his writings are translated as indefinite (“a prophet,” “a king,” “a man,” etc.)

There are examples which trinitarians often use which NT grammars tell us are improper examples (include “God of…”; “man of…”; “prophet of…” etc.). These, abstracts, non-count nouns, personal names, etc. are not proper examples for this study.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And, in the second part of my studies, I found that all constructions that are parallel with John 1:1c (anarthrous predicate noun before the verb) in his writings are translated as indefinite (“a prophet,” “a king,” “a man,” etc.)

There are examples which trinitarians often use which NT grammars tell us are improper examples (include “God of…”; “man of…”; “prophet of…” etc.). These, abstracts, non-count nouns, personal names, etc. are not proper examples for this study.

all nouns which do not have a definite article prefixing it ( or suffixing in construct) are anarthrous. Anarthrous could be simply defined as a noun without a definite article. and that holds true across the spectrrum.

 

[tigger 2]

Rise and Raise

In English we use “rise” and “raise” with two distinctly different meanings. “Rise” is what a person or thing does by itself to itself: “I rise every morning at dawn;” “the sun will rise soon.”

“Raise,” on the other hand, is what a person does to some other object or person: “He raised the flag.” “The flag was raised.” The object does not “rise” by itself in this case, but is actually “raised” by someone else! If “raise” is to be used with one’s own self as the object, it must be so stated or plainly understood: “I raised myself so I could see better”!

An examination of all the passages dealing with Christ’s resurrection shows that this is also the intent of nearly all of them. Therefore, when we see “God, having raised up his servant” (Acts 3:26, RSV), we understand God as being one person who raised up someone else (His servant, Jesus). And at Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.” [ * See End Note]

The noted trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall writes:

“our Lord ‘was raised’ as are the dead generally (they do not ‘rise’). See 1 Corinthians ch. 15, etc.” - p. xxxvi, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, 1980.

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -

“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV. Also see Acts 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Ro. 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21; etc.

Probably the only place you could find where there appears to be a statement that the Son raised himself (in contrast to the many scriptures to the contrary) would be John 2:19-22.

John 2:19, 21, 22 -

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ .... But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised [not ‘he raised himself’] from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this.” - RSV.

Rather than ignoring this scripture, since at first glance it seems to contradict all the many others about Jesus being raised up by the Father alone, we should make every attempt to understand it in agreement with the other scriptures on the subject.

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and ...”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Another possibility could be that because of his perfect faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus himself provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead. It might be said that, in a sense, because of his faithful course in life, Jesus himself was responsible for God’s resurrection of him.

A similar style of expression may be seen at Luke 8:48 when Jesus had healed a woman he said to her: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she actually heal herself, then? No; it was power from God the Father through Christ that healed her because of her faith!

Even famed trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us

“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

It should be noted that at least one Bible student has suggested that the figurative "body" Jesus was to raise up was probably a parallel to the one that had been destroyed. The temple stood for the "body" of God's followers. After it had been removed, Jesus built up a new "body" of God's Christian followers which, in effect, replaced the old "body."

But whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many clear, indisputable, literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life.

 

[tigger 2]

all nouns which do not have a definite article prefixing it ( or suffixing in construct) are anarthrous. Anarthrous could be simply defined as a noun without a definite article. and that holds true across the spectrrum.

.......................................
And how do most major Bibles (KJV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc.) translate John's anarthrous count nouns?

How about these examples of an anarthrous predicate count noun which is found before the verb in John’s writing:

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew")
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet")
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer")
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer")
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan")
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner")
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer")
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man")
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew")
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king")
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)

These would include:

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”)
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”)
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”)
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”)
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”)
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”)
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”)
And, possibly,
H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.

H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and ...”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Another possibility could be that because of his perfect faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus himself provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead. It might be said that, in a sense, because of his faithful course in life, Jesus himself was responsible for God’s resurrection of him.

A similar style of expression may be seen at Luke 8:48 when Jesus had healed a woman he said to her: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she actually heal herself, then? No; it was power from God the Father through Christ that healed her because of her faith!

Even famed trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us

“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

It should be noted that at least one Bible student has suggested that the figurative "body" Jesus was to raise up was probably a parallel to the one that had been destroyed. The temple stood for the "body" of God's followers. After it had been removed, Jesus built up a new "body" of God's Christian followers which, in effect, replaced the old "body."

But whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many clear, indisputable, literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life.

Obviously He was not speaking figuratively of His body. He made a factual absolute statement and meant it. There is no words nor construct that implies Jesus was speaking figuratively or symbolically.

The entire basis of Salvation is hinged on teh fact that Jesus rose from teh dead in teh Body He died in!

also Jesus raised His Body from teh deaqd
Teh father raised jesus from teh dead
and the Spirit raised jesus from the dead, and also as also written:
God raised jesus from teh dead! all three divine entities were involved in the standing AGAIN of Jesus from the dead!

One cannot stand again unless one first lays down. Jesus did not die an invisible spirit creature, so he cannot stand again as one. One can only experience resurrection (ana-stasia) if they stand again in the same form they were lain down with! Otherwise it is not a standing AGAIN!

If you died as tigger2 and were raised invisible- you did not experience resurrection but transformation.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus raised His Body from teh deaqd

There is not one single verse in Scripture that says this Pagan idea.

I would get my wife a cup of coffee, Jesus would raise himself is not the same thing as I actually did get my wife a cup of coffee or Jesus actually did raise himself from the dead.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Even your New World Translation says this for Luke 24:39.

“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39) (New World Translation).

In other words, your own catered translation failed to alter this verse to fit your own pet theology.

For after the resurrection: Jesus is saying he has flesh and bones unlike a spirit has. Yet, you guys falsely say Jesus was spirit and not flesh after the resurrection. This contradicts the reading of even your New World Translation on your own website. No offense, but you guys cannot even read your own Bible correctly. You have to play the original languages game and claim the English translation on the JW website is not accurate (Which would mean the JW website is lying publicly to people because there is no disclaimer telling the reader this fact).

 

[quietthinker]

Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?
Is cheese cake real cake?

 

[DavidB]

Even your New World Translation says this for Luke 24:39.

“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39) (New World Translation).

In other words, your own catered translation failed to alter this verse to fit your own pet theology.

For after the resurrection: Jesus is saying he has flesh and bones unlike a spirit has. Yet, you guys falsely say Jesus was spirit and not flesh after the resurrection. This contradicts the reading of even your New World Translation on your own website. No offense, but you guys cannot even read your own Bible correctly. You have to play the original languages game and claim the English translation on the JW website is not accurate (Which would mean the JW website is lying publicly to people because there is no disclaimer telling the reader this fact).

Obviously He was not speaking figuratively of His body. He made a factual absolute statement and meant it. There is no words nor construct that implies Jesus was speaking figuratively or symbolically.

The entire basis of Salvation is hinged on teh fact that Jesus rose from teh dead in teh Body He died in!

also Jesus raised His Body from teh deaqd
Teh father raised jesus from teh dead
and the Spirit raised jesus from the dead, and also as also written:
God raised jesus from teh dead! all three divine entities were involved in the standing AGAIN of Jesus from the dead!

One cannot stand again unless one first lays down. Jesus did not die an invisible spirit creature, so he cannot stand again as one. One can only experience resurrection (ana-stasia) if they stand again in the same form they were lain down with! Otherwise it is not a standing AGAIN!

If you died as tigger2 and were raised invisible- you did not experience resurrection but transformation.

I think you need to read 1 Corinthians 15. Why can you believe that God sent his spirit Son to earth as an embryo in Mary’s womb but you think it’s impossible for God to resurrect him back as a spirit? This is exactly what Paul writes about and says Jesus was the first fruits of this resurrection.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Continued From No.239

In Jesus' case, mortality/immortality pertained only to his body rather than
to both his body and himself. Were that not so, then Jesus would've ceased
to exist when he expired on the cross, and in order to restore his corpse to
life; it would've been first necessary to restore the man himself to life.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that human life is entirely physical which, for
them, isn't exactly true. They hold to something called "life force" which
enables the core of one's being to exist. The life force is versatile. It can be
taken from a spirit body, transferred to a human body, and then transferred
back again to the spirit body from whence it came.

The JW life force suggests an interesting possibility. Supposing when folks
are terminated in the lake of fire per Rev 20:11-15, their life force survives
to be transferred to a spirit body; enabling them to be perfectly suited to
join the Devil and his angels per Matt 25:41, thus keeping the lost in
existence for as long as God deems necessary to accomplish retribution for
their works per Rev 20:12.
_

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think you need to read 1 Corinthians 15. Why can you believe that God sent his spirit Son to earth as an embryo in Mary’s womb but you think it’s impossible for God to resurrect him back as a spirit? This is exactly what Paul writes about and says Jesus was the first fruits of this resurrection.

With God nothing is impossible. So it’s not the issue that God is not capable of doing as you say. The issue is what is revealed to us in His Word. I already pointed out to you Luke 24:39. Please go back and read the bolded words in red in Luke 24:39. It’s from your own New World Translation. Jesus says, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.”

This means Jesus says he is not like a spirit because he says he has flesh and bones. It’s why Jesus was able to show the nail prints in His hands to Thomas by his previous physical body that died. If Jesus resurrected as a spirit, the nail prints would simply be a lie to Thomas. For you cannot crucify a spirit body. That makes no sense.

As for 1 Corinthians 15:

This is in context to believers and not Jesus. Believers will have a spiritual body in the Rapture to enter the Kingdom in Heaven (being like that of angels), but in the Millennium, and on the New Earth, they will be resurrected bodily (in flesh and blood) to live with Christ. Jesus is not like us because He is GOD. 1 Corinthians 15:47 says the second man is the Lord is from Heaven. Meaning, Jesus is Lord or God. Of course you used to follow the King James Bible before switching to your own catered translation that now alters this verse. So you guys are not even being consistent and or honest here about your own history.

 

[Brakelite]

We are definitely in agreement on this point Wrangler.

You are as deceived as him then. You and Wrangler have an extremely satanically inspired view of the character of God of you believe humility and submission is foreign to His nature. Jesus came to reveal the Father. Submission to His Father's will was the example He set before the universe, and especially us, as we negotiate out way through the traps and hazards of the way home. "take the lower seat". "Humble yourselves before God". You don't think God is capable of humbling Himself before others? You don't think that giving His own precious Only begotten Son to the human race was not an act of humility? You don't think surrendering to the evil murderers of the Jewish leadership an act of humility? KJV 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Humility and self sacrifice is the very essence of the nature of the Father. It's called love.

 

[Brakelite]

God has only one name sir, Jehovah. Perhaps you might show another name for Him from the Bible?

Not another name necessarily. Do not our children inherit our name?
KJV Jeremiah 23:5-6
5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Robert, you and I agree that Jesus was called Michael before He came to this earth. Compare the following...

KJV Revelation 12:7
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.”, “The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.”, “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?”, “... 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.”, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” see Exo. 15:3; Isa. 42:13; Luke 14:31; Rev. 17:14, 19:11

KJV Psalms 24:7-10
7 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Yes. That is a deep concern to me that those who reduce Christ's nature to being "divine" only, while not recognizing that His Sonship is the greatest evidence to His deity, are placing Christ on the same level as Satan and his angels.

When you speak about level, then you must consider the Bible's words at 1 Cor 11:3, that is what I believe Brake.
You might find the opening verse of Job 2 interesting, I certainly do, they give a picture of order and stature sir. Many people don't picture heaven as being governed.

 

[Brakelite]

When you speak about level, then you must consider the Bible's words at 1 Cor 11:3, that is what I believe Brake.
You might find the opening verse of Job 2 interesting, I certainly do, they give a picture of order and stature sir. Many people don't picture heaven as being governed.

Not sure of the point you are trying to make. I have no issue with Christ being the head of the church, and God the head of Christ... What concerns me is

we believe Jesus is Divine, but we believe satan is as well,

Without any recognition of the deity and literal, natural Sonship of Christ, you place Satan as being equal to and of the same nature as Christ. Just divine...like any other heavenly creature. Nothing special. Nothing to see here. Just another ordinary angel who became a man and lived a good life. Sure, he was Michael, so he was the boss, but no different in nature to any other angel. This brief is what concerns me.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Good morning Robert, how are you all? Let me say this: Searching for the Name of God

There are actually seven places in the King James Bible where it actually has the name YEHOVAH with the Y changed to a J in the English Bible. In about the 14th. Century, the J was added as a I with a long tail. A long tail was added to differentiate the first I from the second I. When the printing press came along the long-tailed I was made a J and the King James Bible was one of the first books printed on the first printing press.

Exodus Six:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. It is in capital letters because the translation is from YHVH, but here the actual vowels are printed out that goes with the tetragrammaton YHVH (Yod-hay-vav-hay) translated into English-Yehovah.

Psalm Eighty Three:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah Twelve:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isiah Twenty Six:4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength.

One Lord, One Faith, One God: The Exclusivity of Christianity (gty.org)

Love, Walter

Let me ask you Walt, why do you think they chose to alter Jehovah's name in their version, and why do you think it is found in it in it's entirety 4 times sir?