The Name of God - Documentary by Fritz Poppenberg

[Anna]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(About 3 AM this morning.)

That's funny, both me and my husband found it hard to sleep last night, was there a full moon or something?

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, and that the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.

Yep, I read this too, maybe from the same website you later quote from, although there are probably a few...

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.) 

You are probably right, I was too hasty to assume. Just because someone is willing to work with the Witnesses doesn't automatically make them sympathisers. Yes, money definitely talks.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

t is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants"

That is crazy and I've heard this before, didn't know he was part of the Reibling family. I knew about their involvement in a medical company that produces blood substitutes, but I didn't know their ties to Knocking as well. The great thing is that now anyone can be a successful detective without leaving their desk, thanks to google. And unfortunately, ex- witnesses make this job even easier because they've already done the work, all you have to do is confirm it. I just checked LinkedIn and wow, Lorenzo is a bigwig (I sent him a request, lol). My gut feelings tell me he is a Witness. Of course I can't confirm this because it doesn't say in his profile, but then it doesn't say in my profile either, but there are far too many Witness connections and leads and also what you spoke about. One can send him an email, so maybe one should just ask . I feel such a small fish in a big pond, but there is a congregation out there somewhere and all in those circles will know who he is and what he does. I know a few billionaire brother who were in the same cong. as me in Europe, and I am sure there are many, many like him, you just need to be where he is. The sad thing is I was sent this film in good faith, that it is a non denominational documentary, and had it not been for Furuli right at the onset, I might not have become suspicious (although the ending was kind of suspicious).  I told my step father who sent it to me and he then began to look into it a bit more and found that indeed it is a "Witness" film. I love how informed we can be if we want, nothing is a mystery anymore. Does it make a difference in this particular case? I don't know...one thing I won't be doing for sure is recommending it to anyone as proof that "even secular experts" recognize, what we as JWs already "know", and I think this will have been the intention of the many who assumed it is not from us. They would have found it faith strengthening, but then when you know the real story.....lol...So then would it be ok to have one's faith strengthened by something that is not what it seems? By something that is actually a false premise?  It's weird really isn't it?

Anyway, what I really want to do now is look at your analysis, which I merely skimmed through up to now, and look at the references you made to the movie. I can already tell a lot of it is pretty much what struck me as well!

[Anna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..

Thanks, interesting!

[TrueTomHarley]

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I just checked LinkedIn and wow

Is there a way to find brothers on LI?

[Anna]

27 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is there a way to find brothers on LI?

Yes, ones you know, lol (you can find me there too, although I am a sister ). Some Witnesses will have that they are Witnesses in their profile, but many don't... There is one of our elders there as one of my contacts, and every time I see his photo I have to laugh because you would never guess he is a brother (and a good one) because he has a beard, lol. In fact about 85% of my contacts are JW

[Anna]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW)

LOL! Exactly, that was so weird...you would have thought post- production would have caught that!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.)

Yep, I thought what the heck....?

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices.

Well I for one would never be the one to argue with his math, hehehe

 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't.

Yep, noticed that too...

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH

That's the point at which I went a little brain dead for a few seconds...

 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known.

That I didn't know

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.

Interesting

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy.

I caught that immediately and cringed too....very dishonest and banking on the fact that many will not know who Furuli is, like I didn't know, until you told me...

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

Yes, I was surprised any assumptions were made when we as JWs ourselves have admitted we just can't know....

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.

Interesting

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study.

Ahem..

-----------------------

All in all a terrible, haphazard, and unconvincing documentary in my opinion. A waste of time and money.

In any case, I always find the argument about the “correct” pronunciation of God’s name in English useless anyway. Would you say it was pronounced more correctly in Italian? Or German? Or  Chinese? (I mean come on, who speaks ancient Hebrew) It’s even spelled differently in many languages, but we all know we are talking about God's name Jehovah or Yahweh in its Anglicized form, and however else it's pronounced or spelled in other languages you use. It made me wonder what even was the point of the film? At least Knocking was more purposeful.....

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

Then the consideration still remains as to modern usage. J [I}vav, or Ywaw. The old standard of correction is Yahweh, while the new consideration would still be stipulated as Jehova. There are still many differences between scholars. However, the question is, which ones agree linguistically to the true intent (context) of the old scribes.

Therefore, I would agree, the Watchtower has an excellent command of, bible languages.

 

 

 

REVIEWS, Oxford JournalÂ’s 2015
178
Futato elects to call the Hebrew letter ‘?vav’, so following modern pronunciation. This represents a rather questionable feature for a Biblical Hebrew textbook, when there is good reason to assume that it should be pronounced ‘waw’, and this remains common practice in most Biblical Hebrew textbooks. This represents,
however, the only ‘negative’ feature of an otherwise solid, but basic introduction to the principles and vocabulary of biblical Hebrew. [p.180]

2005 SAGE Publications and Contributors

THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
Adrian Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003. $29.95. pp. 153. ISBN 1–58983–081–4).
The discovery of biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds from the Judaean desert, allowing unprecedented access to the earliest Hebrew witnesses to biblical books, and a substantial body of Greek and Aramaic fragments, revolutionized studies in the history of biblical texts. Now that the
task of publishing the Dead Sea material is finally complete, the proliferation of such studies is set to
continue. In this context, the age-old question of how to evaluate the variations in content, order, textual
tradition and text critical differences between the Hebrew Bible andlxx has been central. The volume under review aims to give an account of the state of the question in the light of recent research on the Dead Sea material and lxx, with a particular focus on biblical books ‘where the relation between the Masoretic text form and the Greek text of the Septuagint appeared to be most in need of a new explanation’ (p. vi). Six case studies, all by leading lxx specialists, represent sophisticated analyses of material in this category, and, in many cases, offer important new insights and substantial re-evaluations of earlier judgements. A valuable reappraisal of the Qumran fragments of Judges concludes that the Hebrew text behind Greek Judges was little different from MT (Fernández Marcos). Other case studies suggest the greater antiquity of specific lxx traditions in comparison with MT as illustrated by comparison of 1 Kings and lxx 3 Reigns (Schwenker); 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah (Böhler); the Vetus Latina of Jeremiah (Bogaert); lxx Ezekiel (Lust); and Daniel
(Munnich).

These studies do not put forward a definitive judgement on the question; nor do they pretend that that is possible in the present state of research. A final chapter by Emanuel Tov evaluates the significance of large-scale differences between lxx and MT, Syriac Bible, Targum and Vulgate, concluding that a significant number of such differences existed prior to MT; and that lxx is the single most important source to preserve redactionally different material, often earlier than MT, because of the different character or greater antiquity of the Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators. Nevertheless, the state of the question means that we remain far from a definitive answer: ‘. . . we are only beginning to unravel the mystery of the background of the Hebrew manuscripts used for the lxx and that of the relations between the ancient witnesses in general’ (p. 144). This is an important volume, and a strong reminder that students of the history of the Bible must take the lxx very seriously.

SARAH PEARCE
University of Southampton

 

 

 

JWI: “Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however).”

A foundation is a non-governmental entity that is established as a nonprofit corporation or a charitable trust, with a principal purpose of making grants to unrelated organizations, institutions, or individuals for scientific, educational, cultural, religious, or other charitable purposes.

Then, which Reibling foundation is being referred to here, The one in Pasadena CA, or the one in Boca Raton, FL. I’m sure there are other “subdivisions” of this nonprofit organization, run by different committees, that contribute funds. In the “case” of “blood issues”, the funds would go to, scientific study and research. So, you through this out there to see if something would stick without having “concrete evidence” as usual. Thanks for the conspiracy!!!!!

TTH: That would depend if, your running for office to gather “dirt” (LinkedIn) on the opposition, or are you selling the information to Wikileaks, which is it?

[Anna]

7 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, which Reibling foundation is being referred to here, The one in Pasadena CA, or the one in Boca Raton, FL

The one who is also the co founder, chairman and senior partner of Taurus Investment Holdings; Mr. Lorenz Reibling.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

Oh! OK a senior partner of the Taurus investment holdings LLC of Boston, Massachusetts, got it! Just making sure where the actual funds would come from when foundations get involved for charitable purposes, and who can be linked just for being part of an organization.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients

Are there some?

Not from the heart tissue itself. Transplant patients sometimes have psychological issues however. There are still many transplant candidates who won't go through with it, often out of guilt for having messed up an organ based on their own bad health decisions and realize that by getting the organ from a recently-healthy donor they are taking away from a more deserving person farther down the list of transplant candidates. Those prone to depression or suicide might find themselves more often pondering life-and-death issues which could be a trigger for further depression and risk of suicide.

When heart transplants were first attempted, and people thought it Frankenstein-like, made-up stories started to appear about people who got transplants from criminals and then became criminals. Brother Schroeder (GB) started giving talks on this subject, where he made the heart the LITERAL, PHYSICAL seat of motivation, rather than just a representative one. Finally he got his long Watchtower article on the heart published that also made use of this idea. But this and similar articles were still getting responses with data that seemed to debunk it. (The letters I saw didn't come from Witnesses but from professionals who had been told this by Witness patients.) When I first started working for Schroeder as a researcher he wanted me to stay on the lookout for such things, not just about the heart, but about all anecdotes for any type of transplant.

This was our position in 1975:

*** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News ***

• It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance. 
• A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.

The second paragraph is, of course, unrelated to the study quoted. Schroeder had linked himself rather closely with the literal side of this, and didn't like the "compromise" claiming that the problem "may be largely or wholly mental." You'd have to know more about the personalities of both Fred Franz and Bert Schroeder to understand a later incident, (below) but it would help to know that Fred Franz was considered "The Oracle" in Governing Body circles and Brother Schroeder was sure he deserved to be the next "Oracle" after Franz died. So Schroeder would even go out and give unapproved talks that made such claims as if he were the new messenger of new truths.

 

Anyway, the "incident" was a Gilead talk that Fred Franz gave, in which you would never suspect that the entire 45 minute Bible-based talk was a tongue-in-cheek "attack" on Brother Schroeder. Most of Fred Franz' talks made it into the Watchtower, often as study articles. This one only got a small mention:

*** w77 6/1 p. 352 Examinations Yet Ahead for a Graduating Class ***

• Before the distribution of diplomas, F. W. Franz also addressed the class. He reminded them of the school examinations that they had had earlier, but then arrested their attention by asking: “Have you had the more vital and serious examination of your kidneys?” He showed from Job 19:27 that in the Bible “kidneys” often represent the innermost recesses of one’s being. So, when Jeremiah 17:10 says that Jehovah ‘examines the kidneys,’ Franz explained, this is not a medical examination, but is done in a judicial capacity. In their postgraduate life, the speaker pointed out, the missionaries will face such an examination of their kidneys. How? In that new situations in life will confront them. When put to the test, what will they really prove to be, deep inside? The psalmist David, though a sinner, did not fear such an inspection by God. (Ps. 26:1-3) Nor should we. Concluding, Franz advised: “Be genuine Christians, not hypocritical, not counterfeit. Be sound Christians down to the core of your personality. If you are, you will pass the examination of your kidneys with everlasting credits to yourself and a clean bill of spiritual health.”

The full talk was about the liver, the fat, the kidneys, and took several swipes at the idea that these Biblical representations were to be taken literally in a medical sense. Brother Schroeder was livid afterwards, and was even more anxious to find evidence to prove Brother Franz to be wrong. If I told him that the information he sought was in a library in Japan, I'm sure he would have sent me there. (Before I forget, Schroeder once asked me research his theory that people who were forced to change from left-handed to right-handed at a young age would become diabetic or get hypoglycemia [low blood sugar] problems. I have no idea what the Biblical connection could have been.)

I should note that by 1980 the Watch Tower Society no longer disfellowshipped people for getting kidney transplants, and decided to expand this to all types of transplants -- even the heart!

*** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
• Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. . . . Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. . . .  It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

This was pretty much the end of the line for Schroeder's line of reasoning on this topic. But this March 15, 1980 reasoning had been approved from the nephew of Fred Franz, also on the Governing Body, and there were rumors that this person, especially after his work on the Aid Book, was already being thought of as the next potential "Oracle." This would be Ray Franz, of course, whose research was often reasonable, but which could also be a mixed bag. He was far from perfect, and also far too low-profile and unassuming to be an organizational leader.)

It wasn't just about this issue, of course, but immediately after this article was written, Schroeder's personal campaign against R Franz ramped up, and Schroeder led every step of the campaign that resulted in R. Franz resigning from the Governing Body in May.

[TrueTomHarley]

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

where he made the heart the LITERAL, PHYSICAL seat of motivation

Yes, I remember this.

 

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

also far too low-profile and unassuming to be an organizational leader.

As am I. (not that I have ever applied for the job) Strange at the qualities associated with leading - as in David, a downright hothead at times (Nabal, for example) whereas bashful, modest Saul - well, just look at how he turned out.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Strange at the qualities associated with leading - as in David, a downright hothead at times (Nabal, for example)

• (1 Samuel 25:22-25) 22 May God do the same and more to the enemies of David if I allow a single male of his to survive until the morning.” 23 When Abʹi·gail caught sight of David, she hurried down off the donkey and threw herself facedown before David, bowing to the ground. 24 She then fell at his feet and said: “My lord, let the blame be on me; let your servant girl speak to you, and listen to the words of your servant girl. 25 Please, do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless Naʹbal, for he is just like his name. Naʹbal is his name, and senselessness is with him.. . .

Abigail spoke disrespectfully of her husband and she became David's wife. Others who spoke disrespectfully of their "lord" in front of David did not fare so well. David was nothing if not inconsistent.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Proverbs 16:28

At least half of the 20 GB members I have listened to over a course of several years seemed to be among the most humble of brothers. I can't say that for about 7 of them, but even where some might have seemed pompous at times, they were still usually likable and personable (F Franz, Sydlik, Swingle). Another 4 of them kept to themselves and didn't say much even during their weekly turns at morning worship from 1976 to 1982. But I have no trouble speaking out clearly and honestly about another 3 GB members who were more often pompous and insufferable to their fellow Bethelites and who even caused harm to the reputation of the Society and Jehovah's name.

• (1 Thessalonians 2:4) 4 but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts.
• (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . .
• (Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,. . .

• (Jeremiah 8:8, 9) 8 “‘How can YOU men say: “We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us”? Surely, now, the false stylus of the secretaries has worked in sheer falsehood. 9 The wise ones have become ashamed. They have become terrified and will be caught. . . .

• (Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

 

On a forum where some of us want to discuss Bible questions, it is all the more important to be open and honest about the times when "guardians of doctrine" have sometimes been guardians of traditions that made the word of God invalid. This is part of progressing to spiritual maturity. If the GB are given undue reverence some people will think that they cannot be questioned and then the discussion of Bible questions is rendered invalid.