Evacuated

Jehovah and Jesus just are not the same. Compare Job 34:12-13 and Matt. 28:18.

So did Abraham not name that place? Gen.22:14. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh ( יְהוָה יִרְאֶה ): as it is said to this day."

Ah well! i understand. Its available, but about £24.50 in UK. "Mony a mickle maks a muckle."

Did these know the name? Gen. 4:26. Is $24.62 expensive where you are? http://www.amazon.com/Revelation-1-5-Word-Biblical-Commentary/dp/0849902517?ie=UTF8&keywords=david%20aune&qid=1461835215&ref_=sr_1_3&s=books&sr=1-3 You can even view several pages to assess, and if you have an Amazon account, sign in and view page 365 for free.

This is a valid question. However, I do not think dividing cases into child and adult camps of wrongdoers is the answer. Incidents of wrongdoing by dedicated Christians need to be handled individually, according to circumstance. Remember that serious wrongdoers are disfellowshipped for unrepentance. Also, disfellowshipping does not relieve family members of their obligations to one another. A child should not be treated any differently by their immediate family other than a spiritual disconnect. And even in this matter, 15 years ago the Watchtower (1 Oct 2001) reminded parents in this position: "Since the child lives with his parents, they are still responsible for instructing and disciplining him in harmony with God’s Word" It is as easy to get all theoretical on this subject as it is to react to it purely emotionally. For me, there is a wider issue here around baptism of minors. The Watchtower of 15/6/2011 (attached) has an article addressing this matter. WT 15 June 2011 3-6.pdf

Dagobert Duck seems to be German version of Scrooge McDuck. Wikipedia says "He was in his first few appearances characterized as a greedy miser and antihero (as Charles Dickens' original Scrooge was), but in later comics and animated shorts and the modern day he is more often portrayed as a charitable and thrifty hero, adventurer, explorer, and philanthropist." The picture above is of a toy version of a popular superhero called Northstar. Wikipedia says of this character: "The character is one of the first openly gay superheroes in American comic books, and the first openly gay character to come out in a book published by Marvel Comics. He married his husband, Kyle Jinadu, inAstonishing X-Men #51 (June 2012), which was the first depiction of a same-sex marriage in mainstream comics." I agree entirely with this point, but just feel it is necessary to make the point that in order for the conscience to work effectively, it needs to be informed.

I think you might be illustrating the problem here. Many parents may simply not realize or have not thought deeply enough about what Satan's commercial world is foisting on our children.

Shiwiii said: "How do you honor one more than the other?" Just an additional thought. The context of this assigning of honor to the Son as to the Father in John 5:23 is of course in Jesus assigned role as judge. It is particularly when judging that Jesus is to be shown honor commensurate with that shown to the Father, as Jehovah has given complete authority to Jesus in this aspect. John 5:22 :"For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son." . Jesus' judgement is as if Jehovah was judging and is as binding. As an example, the account of Joseph in Egypt indicates how a ruler (Pharaoh) could assign such honor to a deserving subject without relinquishing his own superior position. Compare Gen.41:44 with Gen.45:16-20. Although the discussion seems to have diverged somewhat from the original question, I think the answer to it is actually a resounding Yes! because the Scripture indicates clearly that God has a personal name regardless of how it is pronounced. We must understand and appreciate the unique personal differences between Jehovah and His only-begotten Son, identified as Jesus (English pronunciation), which includes their personal names, Only then can we possibly assign them their due, relative honor, and ensure that we follow the instruction Jesus gave as recorded at Luke 4:8: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’ "

For example, what would you say/do if your child wanted to bring this one to the Kingdom Hall?

Thankyou @Jerry A Miller for posting this link to a kind and fair assessment. I have a sad feeling there will be a flood of dirt-dishers in the coming days as the tabloids cash in on any story to feed the prurient market for celebrity rumor and gossip.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said: "yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?" Based on John 5:23: "all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." So, this, (depending on motive) is actually a very good question. As the meaning of the verb "to honor" is similar to that of the Greek word used (form of timao), the definition of the English word is relevant: "honor" verb: to regard with great respect. So actually the honoring is not greater or less. You either honor someone or you do not. It is what it is: honor. However, what the honor is due for is related to the role of the subject. For example, the scriptures exhort children to honor their father and mother at Eph. 6:4. Whilst the honor is the same i.e. not less for the mother over the father, it is expressed within the parameters of the role assigned to each parent. e.g. to assign the mother the role as head of the family, and respect her wishes and/or direction over and above (possibly in contradiction to) those of the father, would be DIS-honoring the mother (and the father) within the theocratic structure (1Cor.11:3), regardless of the motive of the one showing such "honor". Similarly, showing honor to the Father would mean, respecting Him alone as the Sovereign Lord of the Universe (Ps.83:18); the Creator of all things (Is. 42:5), including His Son Jesus Christ (Col.1:15); the provider and acceptor of the Ransom Sacrifice of His Son's perfect human life (Rom.5:8); the originator of the Kingdom administration (Eph.1:10) which includes the extending of the benefits of that Ransom Sacrifice to all obedient former children of the rebellious Adam and Eve (Acts 25:15); and many other things too numerous to mention here. Showing honor to the Son would include (among many other things not mentioned), acknowledging his unique role in: providing his perfect human life as the Ransom Sacrifice (2Tim.2:5-6); in acknowledging that his reward for faithfully carrying out all that was required of him includes his elevated status now in heaven as the King and High Priest (Ph.2:9; 1Tim.1:15; Heb.6:20; Matt.28:18); and recognising that he would never, never place himself on equal footing with his Glorious Heavenly Father, Jehovah (1Cor 11:3; Ph.1:6). In fact, to suggest that Jesus would consider himself equal to God would do him the greatest DIS-honor (Ph.1:6; comp. Jo.8:49). As I said, this was a very good question.

That will be interesting.

Wow!! Where do you live?????

Psalm 82 of course!! Pardon me!

It could be tempting to speculate on some sort of heavenly judicial scenario in the spirit world, incorporating scriptural glimpses such as Job 1;6; 2:2, and maybe ancient Jewish commentaries, alternative renderings of scripture (such as De.32:8), and much earlier writings about pantheons of angelic gods in an antediluvian or other setting. For a number of reasons, I prefer a more "down to earth " understanding. Brown-Driver-Briggs states that the word elohim used at Ps:82:1 can mean rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power. Other Bible references such as Paul's words at 1 Cor 8:5-6 show that there are many viewed as "gods" on earth and the crowd's attribution to Herod at Acts 12:21-22 underlines that humans with power over others could be viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods" regardless of their deserving that description. So the gods referred to in Psalm 8 appear to be humans with power of judging over other men (thus viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods"). From Moses onward, judges existed among God's people for good (1Ki.10:9) or bad (Mic. 4:11) depending on the historical circumstances. As such, Psalm 8 indicates they would be called to account for any injustice in exercising that office by their Supreme Judge, Jehovah. In the account recorded at John 10:31-39, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 when rebutting the Jews' accusation of blasphemy for calling himself a "god",(their inference on the fact he had said he was God's son). He showed that as the scripture actually referred to humans rightly as gods, there was no crime in his reference to himself as Gods son.

Mights and maybes abound in all of this. I also get a feeling that argument is colored by the fact that there are participants who do not want 607 BCE to have significance as strongly as those who do. The spirit shown in the argumentative ripostes on this matter in the forum seem to me to underline the value of Paul's words below: 1 Tim 1:4 "nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith." 2Tim 2:23 "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights." I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem. I think I'll discard all the crumbling, dusty secular "evidence" for everything, including 539 BCE, interesting though it is. Then I can construct a view based on the word of God alone. If there are some apparently corroborative features in the secular field, then fine. If not, then fine too. That element will not arbitrate on what I believe anyway. 2:Tim 3:16.17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work"

Thanks for a timely reference. Discounting the Librarian's initial encyclopedic reference and Anke Adolphe's appreciative acknowledgement, I believe you opened this discussion. I think it is fitting that you should have the final word. Proverbs 18:17 is most appropriate.

Hmm. Is this definitive? or should we say: "secular historical records have yet to be found that identify the ruler that Daniel referred to as Darius the Mede" However, the timing of Dan 9:1 remains unaffected by the identity of Darius the Mede. The event of Babylon's fall remains timed at 539 BCE. with the advent of Persian domination. Then the 1st year mentioned seems to put us into 538 BCE for the time of Daniels prayer. I still feel Daniel places the restoration future due to his words at Dan. 9:17. So, where does that leave us?

Matt 11:25: At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children.

I'd say the answer provides the greater challenge, judging from the responses on this forum alone.

Now I'm smelling fish Ann O'Maly! We have been through all this before, so lets say: I'll stick to mine and you stick to yours!

It's a bit like saying "the sun has set"

Here's a tattoo article that has pictures! YPA 2003.pdf

Yes.

So then we agree at last. Both your and my interpretation of scripture are uninspired.