Jump to content
The World News Media

Evacuated

Member
  • Posts

    2,758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to The Librarian in Does Elohim Mean a 'Plural Oneness' or a 'Plurality of Persons'?   


    Elohim does not mean a "plural oneness" or a "plurality of persons".

    That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote "a `plural' of majesty or excellence" is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew.

    Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament ("long regarded as a standard work for students"), p. 49, shows that elohim, is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

    "The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times." And that elohim when used in that sense "occurs in a [numerically] singular sense" and is "constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular."

    Gesenius - Kautzsch's Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says: 
    "The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... `God' (to be distinguished from the plural `gods', Ex. , etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim(whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."

    More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.

    Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim: 
    "The common plural form `elohim,' a plural of majesty." - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: 
    "It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural]." - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

    Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:
    "Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude ormajesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form." - p. 208.

    The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us: "several phenomena in the universe were designated in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty,grandeur, and holiness."

    Ember also says: 
    "Various theories have been advanced to explain the use of the plural elohim as a designation of the God of Israel. least plausible is the view of the Old Theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (12th century A. D.), that we have in the plural form a reference to the Trinity .... that the language of the OT has entirely given up the idea of plurality [in number] in elohim (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular attribute.

    "...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [`master'] and baalim[`owner', `lord'] employed with reference to [individual] human beings."

    The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young's Analytical Concordance and Young'sLiteral Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young's Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,
    "Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number."

    Both Exodus and 7:1 show God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses.
    And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us: 

    "Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. `gods'). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. ; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullestsense of the word, is God." - p. 67, Vol. 2.

    The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

    "This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality." – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

    And the New American Bible ( ed.) tells us in its "Bible Dictionary" in the appendix:
    "ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty." – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

    A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:
    "The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

    And the prestigious work edited by says about this:

    "It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

    To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the "plural of excellence" that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual.

    So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos . Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): "gods" theoi (nominative) or theois (accusative).

    For example: "I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomestheos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]" - Ex. 20:2. And "know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us..." - Ps. 100:3.

    But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for "gods" in the Septuagint: "Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomestheois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek]." - Ex. 23:24-25.

    And elohim at Ps. 82:6 is translated in the Septuagint as the plural theoi. This scripture is also quoted in the NT at John 10:34 where Jesus is shown also using the plural theoi. 

    The plural elohim argument is no more proper than the plural "faces" argument: When the Hebrew scriptures speak of the face of God, they invariably use the plural Hebrew word which is literally "faces" (e.g. Ex. 33:20, Num. , Ps. ). Obviously, according to this type of trinitarian reasoning, to have "faces" God must be more than one person!
    It is apparent to any competent OT Bible scholar that "faces" is used in a similar manner to the plural "elohim." That is, the plural "faces" is used in a singular sense in the ancient Hebrew idiom.

    We only have to look at other uses in the Bible. King David, for example, is described with the plural "faces" usage: 2 Sam. uses the plural "faces" twice for King David! This scripture, when translated into the ancient Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before Christ, used the singular "face" in Greek. The same thing has happened in many scriptures, e.g. 2 Ki. (Jehoshaphat) and 2 Ki. (an official).

    Clearly, the Hebrew translators of that time did not understand a "multiple-person God" (any more than a "multiple-person David [or Jehoshaphat]") or they certainly would have translated the plural Hebrew "faces" of God with the plural Greek word for "faces." But theynever did!

    Likewise, as with the plural elohim, the New Testament writers never followed the Hebrew plural usage for "face," but always used the singular "face" for God (e.g., Heb. 9:24). How extremely strange if they really believed God was more than one person.

    We see exactly the same thing happening for translations of the plural elohim in the ancient Septuagint and in the Christian NT.

    Yes, all the NT Bible writers, whether quoting from the OT or writing their own God-inspired NT scriptures, always used the singular "God" (theos) in NT Greek when speaking of the only true God of the Bible. (If the plural form had been used for the only true God, we would even discover a new "trinity" at John 10:34.)

    It is absolutely incredible that John, Paul, and the other inspired NT writers would not have used the plural Greek form to translate the plural Hebrew form of "God" if they had intended in any degree to imply that God was in any way more than one person!
     
  2. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to JW Insider in Hebrew Calendar   
    I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society."  Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer.
    This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox.
    In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements.
    *** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012]
    The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14.
    *** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
    The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
    According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown.
     
    The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts.
    Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season."
    This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. 
    In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. 
    There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That  which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that.  It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.
     
  3. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from admin in Memorial Attendance   
  4. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to Melinda Mills in Can I count my time while visiting elderly JW's at rest homes?   
    Enjoyed all the comments.  I also think Jay would get the point and the spirit behind the comments. (Love the reference to Matt 23:23,24) However, the Word of God is alive an these scriptures can reinforce some of the points.
    True Christians are never on holiday from their service to God. They serve him full time in thought, word and deed
    (1 Cor 10:31-33) 31 Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. 32 Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, 33 just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved.
    True Christians serve God with their power of reason - they use their minds and conscience
    (Romans 12:1) Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.
    True Christians are interested in doing good work and helping others at all times (whether they can report the activity or not)
    (Colossians 3:22) You slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters, not only when they are watching, just to please men, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah.
    Do what you have resolved in your own heart for God and your neighbour. Enjoy your service and be happy. God will not forget your good work and the love you showed for his name (written down or not written).
    Agape
     
     
     
     
  5. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in Hebrew Calendar   
    http://www.jw-archive.org/post/135869785598/when-was-the-last-time-our-memorial-was-not-within
  6. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to Melinda Mills in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    I think the problem is due largely to ignorance of the function of governments and international organizations.  In another comment, I will highlight some of the benefits we enjoy worldwide because of the work of the United Nations.  Jehovah has allowed governments to keep order and to help us in our preaching work.  ((1 Tim 2:1,2; Romans 13:1). Nothing can be achieved without relative peace.  Only Jehovah's Kingdom will bring peace and we must not worship the peace beast as the only hope for mankind as has Christendom. We can still cooperate with governments to achieve certain goals.  There is no requirement to hate them.  It is Satan who is using them to harm and persecute us.  Satan has fostered all worldly governments but they are made up of people who we are supposed to love and set a good example to.  They are thousands of examples where Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended by the governments for good work and conduct.  The United Nations is made up of  individual governments.  That is why it is called the image of the wild beast. If we respect the government we individually live under, we must also respect the United Nations.
    Granted something unintentional was done to achieve greater access to information to maybe prove fulfillment of prophecy and obtain statistics of every sort. However, I think the complaint has been pushed out of proportion.
    I endorse the comment of Eoin Joyce and also recommend studying how Jehovah and his representatives who appreciated the role of government cooperated to get things done. We have just studied Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and we see how Esther and Mordecai along with Jehovah's intervention used good judgement to protect His people. Romans chapter 13 is essential reading also.  See below: (Taken from w95 10/1 "A World without War - When?")
    THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS
      In Bible prophecy, human governments are often symbolized by wild beasts. (Daniel 7:6, 12, 23; 8:20-22) Hence, for many decades the Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns.
      However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves.”—Romans 13:1, 2.
                                                                                             
     
  7. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Melinda Mills in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
    I have noted your references and the arguments made by the various critics you recommend. The observations are interesting and informative where factual. The conclusions and assertions made remain the perception of those critics however, and I do not find them in the least convincing. For me, they remain simply, allegations.
    I can see in the scriptural record similarities to the many ways in which God's servants in the past were assisted by secular authorities in the carrying out of Jehovah's purposes. Ezra and Nehemiah's relationship to the authorities in their day being classic examples. (I would submit both books in their entirety as references here).
    This record(for me) serves simply to demonstrate the inability of Satan to thwart Jehovah in that the very organisations representing his (Satan's) rulership are used, when required, to accomplish Jehovah's purposes. 
    The passage of scripture in Matthew 12:22-30 fits well for me in response to these allegations.
     
     
  8. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Arauna in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    This is a ridiculous allegation.
    There is no promoting of the UN in these articles any more than the apostle Paul promoted the Stoic poet Aratus in his speech on the Areopagus at Acts 17:28.
    These WT articles merely reference the attempts of the UN to promote beneficial strategies for the human family, and highlight  it's failure to accomplish what can only be achieved through the administration of Jehovah's kingdom, the only viable government for this earth.
    These assertions, and others like them, are filling up the measure of the activities of Haman (Esther 3:8). 
  9. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from SuzA in Elders and Ministerial Servants Only Party?   
    Brothers want to hold a meeting based on spiritual activity related to their assignment such as elders/ministerial servants; elders; pioneers etc.? No problem for me.
    Private get together between small group where family heads share spiritual appointment whether pioneers or servants? No problem for me.
    Elder/Ministerial servant families only social event? Not for me. I would decline on the basis of para 12 page 9 in the study article in Jan 15 2016 Watchtower alone:
    12 Do we extend hospitality to others by inviting them to our home for a meal or for some association and encouragement? We would not need to make elaborate or expensive arrangements to be considered hospitable; nor would we want to invite only those who might repay us in some way. (Luke 10:42; 14:12-14) Our goal should be to encourage, not to impress! ...
    Hopefully whoever organises this occasion for over 50 brothers is taking on board all the society's counsel on large social gatherings.
  10. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from TheWorldNewsOrg in Hebrew Calendar   
    http://www.jw-archive.org/post/135869785598/when-was-the-last-time-our-memorial-was-not-within
  11. Upvote
  12. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Melinda Mills in Does the Watchtower Society this year celebrate the Memorial or the Fast of Esther?   
    Seems the practice (since the 4th Century) of adding an extra month, Adar1, every so often to realign the Jewish lunar calendar with the solar calendar puts the modern Jewish calendar out of sync with our Memorial date, particularly in 2016.
    This well explained here: http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm#Links
    There are other factors effecting the date. The timing of Nisan 1 by the sight of the new moon in Jerusalem rather than the astronomical calculation can mean a difference of 18-30 hours, placing our reckoning of Nisan 14 up to 2 days later. Also, the timing of the Passover Sacrifice as taking place between sunset and darkness of Nisan 14 (as substantiated by Ex 12:6 and De.16:6) differs from those Jewish authorities who place the Passover meal later, as occuring on Nisan 15.
    Our calculations are based on the best evidence for the system used when the memorial was instituted by Jesus in the 1st Century, rather than the more recent Jewish methods.
    Other references include:
    WT 1 Feb 1976 p73
    The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
     
    *** w73 3/15 p. 175 Is the Date for Celebrating Passover Important to Christians? ***

    Is the Date for Celebrating Passover Important to Christians?

    JESUS CHRIST, the founder of Christianity, instituted the memorial of his death (the Lord’s Evening Meal) on a day marked by an annual observance, the Jewish Passover. This being the case, reasonably the Lord’s Evening Meal would also be an annual celebration. Hence the date on which the Passover was held would determine when the memorial of Jesus’ death should be commemorated. Christians therefore find it of more than passing interest to ascertain when Passover was observed. It is important, for they are under command to keep the memorial of Jesus’ death.—Luke 22:19.

    According to the Jewish calendar, the anniversary date for the celebration of Passover falls in the month of Nisan. Regarding the lamb or goat that was to be eaten during the course of the Passover meal, Jehovah God commanded: “It must continue under safeguard by you until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it between the two evenings.”—Ex. 12:6.

    What does the expression “two evenings” mean? Does it have any bearing on the date for celebrating Passover?

    Jewish tradition generally presents the “two evenings” as the time from noon (when the sun begins to decline) on until sundown. As the Israelites measured their day from sundown to sundown, this would mean that the Passover victim was slaughtered prior to the sundown with which Nisan 14 ended and Nisan 15 began. If this were correct, the Passover meal itself would have been eaten in Egypt on Nisan 15 and the Israelites would not have left Egypt until that date.

    But the traditional Jewish view regarding the “two evenings” does not harmonize with the Bible account at Exodus 12:17, 18. There we read: “You must keep the festival of unfermented cakes, because on this very day I must bring your armies out from the land of Egypt. And you must keep this day throughout your generations as a statute to time indefinite. In the first month [Nisan or Abib], on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening you are to eat unfermented cakes.”

    Had the Passover victim been slaughtered as Jewish tradition holds, namely, in the last quarter of the fourteenth day, which ended at sundown, then the Israelites could not have left Egypt that “very day.” The event that enabled them to depart was the death of the Egyptian firstborn. But, as this took place at midnight, it would not have come until about six hours after Nisan 14 ended.—Ex. 12:29.

    So we must look to a source other than Jewish tradition to find out when the Passover victim was sacrificed and then eaten. We need to examine the Bible itself to determine the significance of the expression “two evenings.” Directing our attention to Deuteronomy 16:6, we note that in the case of the first evening a time beginning considerably later than noon is involved. The instructions to Israel here read: “You should sacrifice the passover in the evening as soon as the sun sets.” So the first of the “two evenings” manifestly designates the time when the sun sets, whereas the second evening would correspond to the time when the sun’s reflected light or afterglow ends and darkness falls.

    This explanation of the two evenings was also offered by the Spanish rabbi Aben-Ezra (1092-1167 C.E.), as well as by the Samaritans and the Karaite Jews. It is the view presented by such scholars as Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Gesenius, Maurer, Kalisch, Knobel and Keil.

    Viewing the Biblical evidence as a whole, we can see that the Passover victim was slaughtered at sunset, at the start of Nisan 14, and the meal itself was eaten later that evening. Whereas the Jews of today, in keeping with tradition, eat the Passover meal on Nisan 15, their practice is not supported by the Holy Scriptures. The correct anniversary date is Nisan 14.

    Thus Jesus Christ must have eaten the Passover with his disciples on Nisan 14 “after evening had fallen” and thereafter instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal. (Mark 14:17; Matt. 26:20-28) Jehovah’s Christian witnesses therefore observe the memorial of Christ’s death on its anniversary date after sundown on Nisan 14.

  13. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to admin in Is it a lie when the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus and the disciples ate the unleavened bread when in fact that bread was leavened?   
    @Eoin Joyce good answer.  Although please remove the formatting in your response as much is off the page. 
    @the poster.  Please ask Questions in the section for questions. You are just trying to make statements. I changed your title to a question. 
  14. Upvote
  15. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Carmen Erwin in Timeline of the 'Light Getting Brighter'   
    2012 - Gen 49:27. "Benjamin...will divide spoil".  Specfically applied to Esther and Mordecai (Benjaminites) receivingHaman's estate as "spoil". Watchtower, January 1, 2012, p.29.
    2012 - Dan 2:44. "All these kingdoms" refers specifically to the governments represented in the symbolic image, not all present day governments as formerly explained. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.17.
    2012 - Dan 8:24. The "ruin" caused by the "fierce-looking king" specifically applied to scope of Anglo-American military destruction i.e dropping of two atomic bombs. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.16.
    2012 - Dan 2::41-43. "toes" of the symbolic image held as having no separate prophetic significance apart from what is represented by the feet of the image. The number 10 is not mentioned here. Formerly held to be the final conglomeration of nations at the time of Armageddon. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.16.
    2012 - Emergence of seventh world power. Emergence of Anglo-American world power seen in USA/British partnership formed during World War 1, 1914-18 CE. Formerly timed with ascendancy of British Empire in 1763 CE. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.15,19.
     
    There are additional examples listed on pages 26-27 of the 2016 Yearbook
     
  16. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Carmen Erwin in Does the Watchtower Society this year celebrate the Memorial or the Fast of Esther?   
    Seems the practice (since the 4th Century) of adding an extra month, Adar1, every so often to realign the Jewish lunar calendar with the solar calendar puts the modern Jewish calendar out of sync with our Memorial date, particularly in 2016.
    This well explained here: http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm#Links
    There are other factors effecting the date. The timing of Nisan 1 by the sight of the new moon in Jerusalem rather than the astronomical calculation can mean a difference of 18-30 hours, placing our reckoning of Nisan 14 up to 2 days later. Also, the timing of the Passover Sacrifice as taking place between sunset and darkness of Nisan 14 (as substantiated by Ex 12:6 and De.16:6) differs from those Jewish authorities who place the Passover meal later, as occuring on Nisan 15.
    Our calculations are based on the best evidence for the system used when the memorial was instituted by Jesus in the 1st Century, rather than the more recent Jewish methods.
    Other references include:
    WT 1 Feb 1976 p73
    The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar.
     
    *** w73 3/15 p. 175 Is the Date for Celebrating Passover Important to Christians? ***

    Is the Date for Celebrating Passover Important to Christians?

    JESUS CHRIST, the founder of Christianity, instituted the memorial of his death (the Lord’s Evening Meal) on a day marked by an annual observance, the Jewish Passover. This being the case, reasonably the Lord’s Evening Meal would also be an annual celebration. Hence the date on which the Passover was held would determine when the memorial of Jesus’ death should be commemorated. Christians therefore find it of more than passing interest to ascertain when Passover was observed. It is important, for they are under command to keep the memorial of Jesus’ death.—Luke 22:19.

    According to the Jewish calendar, the anniversary date for the celebration of Passover falls in the month of Nisan. Regarding the lamb or goat that was to be eaten during the course of the Passover meal, Jehovah God commanded: “It must continue under safeguard by you until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it between the two evenings.”—Ex. 12:6.

    What does the expression “two evenings” mean? Does it have any bearing on the date for celebrating Passover?

    Jewish tradition generally presents the “two evenings” as the time from noon (when the sun begins to decline) on until sundown. As the Israelites measured their day from sundown to sundown, this would mean that the Passover victim was slaughtered prior to the sundown with which Nisan 14 ended and Nisan 15 began. If this were correct, the Passover meal itself would have been eaten in Egypt on Nisan 15 and the Israelites would not have left Egypt until that date.

    But the traditional Jewish view regarding the “two evenings” does not harmonize with the Bible account at Exodus 12:17, 18. There we read: “You must keep the festival of unfermented cakes, because on this very day I must bring your armies out from the land of Egypt. And you must keep this day throughout your generations as a statute to time indefinite. In the first month [Nisan or Abib], on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening you are to eat unfermented cakes.”

    Had the Passover victim been slaughtered as Jewish tradition holds, namely, in the last quarter of the fourteenth day, which ended at sundown, then the Israelites could not have left Egypt that “very day.” The event that enabled them to depart was the death of the Egyptian firstborn. But, as this took place at midnight, it would not have come until about six hours after Nisan 14 ended.—Ex. 12:29.

    So we must look to a source other than Jewish tradition to find out when the Passover victim was sacrificed and then eaten. We need to examine the Bible itself to determine the significance of the expression “two evenings.” Directing our attention to Deuteronomy 16:6, we note that in the case of the first evening a time beginning considerably later than noon is involved. The instructions to Israel here read: “You should sacrifice the passover in the evening as soon as the sun sets.” So the first of the “two evenings” manifestly designates the time when the sun sets, whereas the second evening would correspond to the time when the sun’s reflected light or afterglow ends and darkness falls.

    This explanation of the two evenings was also offered by the Spanish rabbi Aben-Ezra (1092-1167 C.E.), as well as by the Samaritans and the Karaite Jews. It is the view presented by such scholars as Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Gesenius, Maurer, Kalisch, Knobel and Keil.

    Viewing the Biblical evidence as a whole, we can see that the Passover victim was slaughtered at sunset, at the start of Nisan 14, and the meal itself was eaten later that evening. Whereas the Jews of today, in keeping with tradition, eat the Passover meal on Nisan 15, their practice is not supported by the Holy Scriptures. The correct anniversary date is Nisan 14.

    Thus Jesus Christ must have eaten the Passover with his disciples on Nisan 14 “after evening had fallen” and thereafter instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal. (Mark 14:17; Matt. 26:20-28) Jehovah’s Christian witnesses therefore observe the memorial of Christ’s death on its anniversary date after sundown on Nisan 14.

  17. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Sarah gibson in Timeline of the 'Light Getting Brighter'   
    2012 - Gen 49:27. "Benjamin...will divide spoil".  Specfically applied to Esther and Mordecai (Benjaminites) receivingHaman's estate as "spoil". Watchtower, January 1, 2012, p.29.
    2012 - Dan 2:44. "All these kingdoms" refers specifically to the governments represented in the symbolic image, not all present day governments as formerly explained. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.17.
    2012 - Dan 8:24. The "ruin" caused by the "fierce-looking king" specifically applied to scope of Anglo-American military destruction i.e dropping of two atomic bombs. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.16.
    2012 - Dan 2::41-43. "toes" of the symbolic image held as having no separate prophetic significance apart from what is represented by the feet of the image. The number 10 is not mentioned here. Formerly held to be the final conglomeration of nations at the time of Armageddon. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.16.
    2012 - Emergence of seventh world power. Emergence of Anglo-American world power seen in USA/British partnership formed during World War 1, 1914-18 CE. Formerly timed with ascendancy of British Empire in 1763 CE. Watchtower, June 15, 2012, p.15,19.
     
    There are additional examples listed on pages 26-27 of the 2016 Yearbook
     
  18. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from SuzA in Is homosexuality a reason to get a brother permission to have a scriptural divorce and remarry?   
    Not sure how "he brought some brothers" to serve as witnesses to this incident.
    Matt 5:32
    However, as you probably know, porneia is not dependent on the sex of the persons involved. So, a proven case is grounds for the innocent party to scripturally divorce.
  19. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to JW Insider in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
    I believe that Ann O'maly has stated the truth about the U.N. involvement about as well as anyone can. I know the brother who got the Society involved with the UN DPI/NGO, and have spoken to him several times since I left Bethel in the 1980's. I know that the paperwork was approved by others including a member of the GB (mentioned by Ann).
    It was definitely a mistake. And it has definitely stumbled people. I'm not here to defend it, and I'm not here as one of those Witnesses who will claim that Jehovah has allowed certain mistakes just to filter out those who are disloyal, or those who are looking for an excuse to leave the Organization. People still say this about some of the mistakes of the past, and will likely say such things about mistakes made in the future.
    I just searched through the jw-archive site, because I know that we have discussed this before, and I didn't want to just keep re-writing things "from scratch" over and over again -- which is something I have a tendency to always do. In fact, this is the very first time I will be quoting myself from a previous post: I'm no expert on this, and perhaps I don't have all the facts either, but the information is from people I trust.
     
    A portion of the discussion from https://disqus.com/home/discussion/jwarchive/jw_archiveorg_by_the_jw_comic_strip_52/#comment-2009424381
    (I made the UN joke because the timing was close to "Sternstorm." The WTS applied for the NGO status through their DPI (Dept of Public Info.) in 1991 and received it in 1992. I believe we requested disassociation in 2001, just after an investigative journalist exposed the NGO/DPI connection.)
    If you are asking about the UN, then unfortunately, the answer is Yes. The Watchtower joined the UN as an NGO. I know the brother who spearheaded the effort, still in Writing (last I spoke to him), and also knew others who approved it at the time (now deceased). They meant no harm, but it proved to be an embarrassment. They didn't really need the NGO status, for the original purpose -- access to informational materials, but the status seems to have given them quicker information about conferences and events that could have even helped the Watchtower Society learn more about the behind-the-scenes political circumstances of our brothers in various countries. The most embarrassing part, of course, was getting "disfellowshipped" by the UN. (That really happened, but it happened just after the WTS requested it.) Also, for a while, the Watchtower Society was supposed to write one informational article per year that informed our audience of some of the work the UN was doing. (That's one of the ways the DPI works.) So while the Watchtower magazine bashed them negatively, a small piece here and there in the Awake! magazine was doing articles on UNICEF etc that were between neutral and positive.
    ...
    I should also say that I don't think this started out as anything very big. But those who got involved should have realized that almost everything goes public and becomes searchable. For a while you could even search the U.N.'s site and see which Awake! articles had been submitted for NGO/DPI compliance.
    My motto: If you think you'll have trouble defending it, just don't! (Don't start something you might have to defend later.)
    But I have to say that even in 1976, I was doing some follow-up research on Mr. Banda, the president of Malawi who had allowed widespread persecution of the Witnesses for several years just prior. And it turns out that he made some anti-JW statements that blamed the Witnesses for their own troubles -- saying that the problem was not just the 25 cent political party card. I only found this info in some heavy encyclopedic U.N. publications that no one in Writing had seen or heard of -- although these publications were at a large university library. It's quite possible that, 15 years later, a couple brothers were convinced that this type of information, although available without the NGO/DPI connection, would become more accessible. (I don't know if that would really be true.) Or, even more likely, that if we could gain a respectable status with THEIR researchers, we could merely request things to be xeroxed and mailed to the WTS, rather than traveling over to DPI repositories, and hardly knowing where to start.
     
    ----- and in another place on jw-archive, it came up again ------
     
    There is additional evidence or information that I'm sure you can find from others, but what I write below is based mostly on what I know personally and have seen with my own eyes. It is mixed with a few things I have learned from other trusted and current Witnesses.
    A very interesting man in Bethel's Writing Department is best known for some of his non-outline talks that he has given in hundreds of congregations. You can find many of his recorded talks on the Internet. He is a good speaker with a "dramatic" personality. I know the man well, and still count him as a friend although we rarely speak. I have seen him outside Bethel, in NY, NJ, even PA, oddly enough, buying books for his own library and for the Bethel libraries. (I have been a book collector for 30 years, and still take on research work for authors, so we have often frequented the same places.)
    From the time I first knew him, 1976, this brother was in the Service Department and finally moved to the Writing Department. He was quickly given a lot of autonomy under the supervision of Lloyd Barry because he did more research and book purchasing than pure Writing compared with most others in Writing.
    The brother I am speaking about was very highly embarrassed over the fact that it was mostly his own idea that got this thing started. I have not talked about it with him. He began using the UN library regularly in 1990, then weekly in 1991, and initially signed up with the UN's "Department of Public Information" (DPI) in 1991 (and officially accepted 1992) for easier access to library materials, but in the process of accessing those materials he learned a lot about different types of access to conferences and areas of interest that aligned with the Society's interests outside of just the library resources. (It was thought that association might have made it easier to publicize JW human rights violations, learn more about what other religions were doing when they had similar issues with religious persecution in many countries. It made it easier to get information about international religious taxation issues, and Holocaust publicity, etc.)
    Brother Barry agreed with him that these other areas of access were also valuable, and they continued the association as an "NGO" (non-governmental organization). The names of both of these brothers, including the GB member, and another direct report to a GB member from the Service Dept are still on some forms at the UN.
    They also had to agree to produce articles that helped to promote the work of United Nations' initiatives. The first one was the September 8, 1991 Awake! One initiative that the WTS could most easily agree with was UNICEF. The December 8, 2000 Awake! for example prints out the entire UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child in a single issue that mentions UNICEF 10 times (in a positive context). I'll quote it below.
    But first notice by using the 2014 Watchtower Library CD for example that in the 10 years that the WTS was associated with the UN it mentioned UNICEF about 75 times (from 1991-2001). After a leak by the Guardian, the WTS was disassociated from the UN in 2001 when it was exposed to the UN that the Watchtower was simultaneously speaking out AGAINST the UN at the same time the Awake! was speaking positively about it.
    (UNICEF has been mentioned just 11 times in the much longer time period since 2001, and always just to quote negative statistics.)
    I have seen a list that included articles that were presented to the UN/DPI as proof that the WTS was keeping it's agreement by publishing at least one positive article per year. I don't have a copy of it, and don't know if anyone else does. I forget whether it included the issue below from 2000. I wish I had kept a copy. As I recall, it had references to about 10 different issues of the Awake! over a period of several years.
    *** g00 12/8 p. 5 An Ongoing Search for Solutions ***
    The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
    ● The right to a name and nationality.
    ● The right to affection, love, and understanding and to material security.
    ● The right to adequate nutrition, housing, and medical services.
    ● The right to special care if disabled, be it physically, mentally, or socially.
    ● The right to be among the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances.
    ● The right to be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty, and exploitation.
    ● The right to full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity to free and compulsory education, to enable the child to develop his individual abilities and to become a useful member of society.
    ● The right to develop his full potential in conditions of freedom and dignity.
    ● The right to be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace, and universal brotherhood.
    ● The right to enjoy these rights regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and property, birth, or other status.
     
     
    --------------
    Back to your current post. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think we need to cover up anything. A mistake was made, and we ultimately resolved it. I don't see what it proves to keep bringing it up. It does not show that we supported the U.N.  It shows that we found areas of agreement. We used the relationship to our advantage and the "cost" to us was the need to write about ways in which another organization was also trying to resolve world problems. For all we know, we would have been writing about such things anyway. Personally, I think we ended up looking more reasonable by discussing what the world was trying to do, and how it was at times making progress. Even their limited progress still highlighted the need for a more comprehensive solution.
    So it's not like any JWs really needed to take their focus off the Scriptural reasoning for resolving the world's problems. Perhaps it made us more sympathetic and knowledgeable about the viewpoint of others. In the more distant past, we often did nothing but show derision for such efforts. Surely we are better off now for such research. I don't see this whole thing as a one-sided proof of hypocrisy with no up-side. I believe the posts also show that (through the mistake) we discovered avenues and venues for involvement in human rights awareness that we were not aware of previously.
     
  20. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
    I have noted your references and the arguments made by the various critics you recommend. The observations are interesting and informative where factual. The conclusions and assertions made remain the perception of those critics however, and I do not find them in the least convincing. For me, they remain simply, allegations.
    I can see in the scriptural record similarities to the many ways in which God's servants in the past were assisted by secular authorities in the carrying out of Jehovah's purposes. Ezra and Nehemiah's relationship to the authorities in their day being classic examples. (I would submit both books in their entirety as references here).
    This record(for me) serves simply to demonstrate the inability of Satan to thwart Jehovah in that the very organisations representing his (Satan's) rulership are used, when required, to accomplish Jehovah's purposes. 
    The passage of scripture in Matthew 12:22-30 fits well for me in response to these allegations.
     
     
  21. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Melinda Mills in United Nations vs WATCHTOWER   
    This is a ridiculous allegation.
    There is no promoting of the UN in these articles any more than the apostle Paul promoted the Stoic poet Aratus in his speech on the Areopagus at Acts 17:28.
    These WT articles merely reference the attempts of the UN to promote beneficial strategies for the human family, and highlight  it's failure to accomplish what can only be achieved through the administration of Jehovah's kingdom, the only viable government for this earth.
    These assertions, and others like them, are filling up the measure of the activities of Haman (Esther 3:8). 
  22. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Melinda Mills in Is homosexuality a reason to get a brother permission to have a scriptural divorce and remarry?   
    Not sure how "he brought some brothers" to serve as witnesses to this incident.
    Matt 5:32
    However, as you probably know, porneia is not dependent on the sex of the persons involved. So, a proven case is grounds for the innocent party to scripturally divorce.
  23. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from gfnslave in REINSTATEMENT No2   
    Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?  Asking for forgiveness is not the only criteria as John the Baptist made clear at Matt 3:8.
    "Thank you Eoin, But I am sure you have an opinion of your own" you said. Well here is my opinion:
    If a person is sick, they need medical attention. If their sickness is contagious, additional precaution must be taken to avoid infecting others and this may include isolation until the sickness is no longer contagious. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best medical attention.
    In the case of patients who respond to medical attention, those with the appropriate training and experience will manage the recovery of afflicted ones and their rehabilitation to the community. Although the process may be lengthy and procedures unpleasant, a successful outcome will outweigh temporary difficulties. Interestingly, although the  process has become sophisticated in modern times, something similar is well outlined in Leviticus 13. 
    Spiritual sickness needs spiritual attention. In the case of unrepentance over serious sin, this is a symptom of serious spiritual sickness. This spiritual sickness needs the additional precaution of isolation from others to avoid infecting them, hence the disfellowshipping arrangement. Although a severe measure, this has the aim of restoration to spiritual health. James 5:14 applies in principal to the recovery process, with the latter part of Jude 23 indicating the need for caution in handling such matters. Managing the spiritual recovery and rehabilitation of spiritually sick ones is the responsibility of those with "spiritual qualifications" (Gal 6:1) and is best left to them. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best spiritual attention (Ph 3:18).
    However, for those who are restored to spiritual health and are reinstated, then Ecc 7:8 applies to their experience, or for more detail, Heb 12:11.
    I am sure you will understand in the case of physical sickness as described above, well intentioned, but inappropriate, contact and action on the part of untrained friends and relatives outside of the medical parameters would only serve to put the afflicted one and themselves at risk. However, once recovery has been confirmed, then there is no limitation. No less so in a spiritual context.
  24. Upvote
    Evacuated got a reaction from Queen Esther in ALL OUR SONGBOOKS... Sunday, February 14. 2016   
    First one
  25. Upvote
    Evacuated reacted to AnonymousBrother in How can we be sure that Gods Name is Jehovah?   
    The exact pronunciation is not known anymore. So, as to the validity of "Jehovah".
    It only applies in the languages it was defined as. How, you wonder? Let's take "fire".
    Is that the original pronunciation of what we know as fire by the being that first mentioned it? We can 99.999999999999999% guarantee it is *not*. So. Is "fire" the incorrect word for fire? By the reasoning some want to apply, the answer is "yes." Which means, pretty much, no-one in he world knows what they are talking about and are speaking gibberish.
    That is where we have "transliteration" and "translation". YHWH is incorrect. Why? The Tetragrammaton is *not written in modern Romanized characters.* YHWH is *not* God's name, *by any means.* 
    It is an attempt to use existing character combinations with an aproximate sound to the word in another language. In the case of YHWH, this is even *more* incorrect, since the pronunciation is not being transliterated, but raw characters, whose pronunciation in that particular combination in their native language *no longer exists.* This brings us to "translation". To use an example, if you ever meet a Korean with the name "Lee", "Lee" is *not* his name. It is a *translation*. His real name, in accurate *transliteration* is "Ee". Lim is really "Him" without the "H" sound. Mr. Park has no "r" in his real name. I am sure you also have many examples.
    Which, now, brings us back to Jehovah and English.
    Until the time of Tyndale, no one had translated the original Hebrew texts into English. Yet, there is a word there that occurs about 7000 times, the concept and exact match of which the English language *does not have*.  Now, since *no one alive then or now* knows *how* that word is pronounced, Tyndale could have written Spongebob with a notation on the front that "Spongebob" is how he will represent the Tetragrammaton in his *translation*, because, with the pronunciation of the original *not known* he *cannot* transliterate. But, instead, he noticed that "Jeova" was being used elsewhere and why, so, rather than pick "Spongebob" he picked Jehovah (modern spelling. It was with an "i" before) and maintained some sort of reasoning for the translation.
    And, of course, the reason Tyndale had to make a translation in the first place has its origins *with God.*
    (ASV) Genesis 11:9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
    As God did not reveal His Name until *after* the Babel episode, those who eventually learned English *had no native concept* of the meaning of God's name, therefore no equivalent word to the Tetragrammaton. They would have to come up with them when they ran into the concept. And, when Tyndale did, he coined
    "Jehovah" 
    to represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the English language about 500 years ago. And, this fact is attested to, still, in dictionaries:
    British "Jehovah" in British English
     See all translations Jehovahnoun
     UK   /dʒəˈhəʊ.və/  US   /dʒəˈhoʊ.və/        › the name of God used in the Old Testament of the Bible http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jehovah
    Now, you can call out "Korean Dude!" or "Mr. Lee!". But, Mr. "Ee" will appreciate you using his name, which, in English, is Mr. "Lee."
    And that is how we view Jehovah, which, in Korean, is Yohowah, which, in ancient Hebrew is . . . The Tetragrammaton. But, you can use Yahweh (or one of the 50 different variations claiming to be the True Pronunciation) if you want: It is *still* wrong. When the New Kingdom arrives for good, I am sure the True Name will be in wide use, and all will have the correct pronunciation. But, until then, we are left with Jesus's words at John 17:26
    (CEB) I’ve made your name known to them and will continue to make it known so that your love for me will be in them, and I myself will be in them.”
    And that is a *critical* reason to be using God's Name, *however* it may have been translated into the language *God Himself* gave you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.