Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,727

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    450

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. JW Insider
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ Reagan's words were as Republican Governor of California in 1967. He was definitely in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill repealing gun rights. The problem was that the framers of the U.S. constitution thought of guns not as an item that all people should have, not especially for hunting and protecting their homes/family/property from just anyone, although that would be their primary use. The constitution only addressed the right for all citizens to carry guns in order to form militias in the event that tyranny reared its ugly head, within US Government agencies. But the real problem is that there really were forms of tyranny that had been rearing their head in America for many years against blacks, American "Indians" and poor whites who could not pay their debts. The most violent tyranny was against the native American "Indians" but the most insidious was against blacks. And then after the constitution allowed more than just land-owners to become citizens they allowed blacks to become citizens, while they were still being tyrannized by tyrants in their own government. That created a problem for the hypocrites running the US Government. A group of black citizens began watching some of the most tyrannical agents of the US government, the white-sponsored police in economically abandoned urban centers. What they were doing was called "copwatchting." But they were watching while armed with guns and, what's even worse for some, cameras. See Mulford Act in Wikipedia, for example. Organized copwatching groups emerged as early as the 1960s in urban areas in the United States when the Black Panthers famously patrolled city streets with firearms and cameras, and other civil rights organizations conducted unarmed patrols in groups. Obviously, Reagan, a rather dullard hypocrite, realized he didn't really believe in the constitution. In this situation it was easy to get both Democratic and Republican support. (Especially "Dixie Democrats" [in the Southern United States], most of whom would later become Republicans as soon as Northern Democrats began to associate the "Democratic" agenda with civil rights toward blacks.)
  2. JW Insider
    I doubt seriously that this is the ONLY issue where you agree with the philosophy of Karl Marx. He was a brilliant economist who supported the theories of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), considered to be one of the most important capitalist economists of his time. More of Karl Marx advances on such theories have withstood the test of time and produced more predictable results. Most anti-Marxists have never read Marx's works. (What's even worse is that most most PRO-Marxists and Marx experts have never read his works either.) People who think they are anti-Marx often merely associate him with things they have heard they shouldn't believe in.
  3. JW Insider
    Wilkinson's biggest problem, especially for Witnesses, would be that he minimizes the importance of the evidence that most early LXX manuscripts use the Hebrew letters, YHWH, (or similar-looking Greek letters in some examples). It was especially the later manuscripts that used a pronouncable "kyrios" (Lord) in the text. This was just pointed out by @Gone Away in a very clear explanation of the JW position on this subject here: Of course a problem with the JW position is that the use of a Hebrew YHWH in the middle of a Greek manuscript is an indication that it was not to be pronouced. Even the use of a Greek-looking "PiPi" in the place of the Tetragram would likely have struck the reader as an indication that he had come across a very non-Greek-sounding and therefore would give pause to anyone trying to pronounce it. This alone places the eclipsing of the Divine Name back to the 300's BCE. Even the use of the Greek abbreviations with a line over them (for references to God and Lord in NT manuscripts) might show that special care was to be taken over pronouncing divine names.
  4. JW Insider
    The review sources for Wilkinson provided by @indagator indicate that the book has serious flaws, and per one review, it brings nothing new to the table. (To another reviewer, what is new is hidden by poor organization.) There are serious mistakes especially because his expertise is in the later medieval and Rennaisance periods and NOT the period that is especially important to the topic -- the earlier period. But it would still have great value for us non-scholars who will likely find this very long book full of much that is new to us. One of the first things that Wilkinson's book does, is put in perspective the iconic uses of the name YHWH and Jehovah found in Renaissance churches and writings. This is an important point for Witnesses in that it correctly diminishes the philological value of the Tetragrammaton and versions that look like IEHOVA or JEHOVAH. These are more related to iconic imagery, even something akin to Trinitarian "idols" rather than telling us anything about the way in which the name was used, not used, and misused historically. Another thing that I believe Wilkison's book does correctly is put a date on the "eclipse" of the Divine Name. Gertoux has good reason to point to the year 130-160 AD as a turning point in the customs with respect to the pronunciation of YHWH, as he did in that "packed" first sentence of the areopage.net link in the OP: In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come. While this date is important, especially with respect to the question of whether first-century Christians pronounced or wrote the name, it can be misleading. This is because, as Wilkinson traces, the process of "eclipsing" the Divine Name can be dated to as early as 300 BCE. That's nearly half a millennium earlier. From what I've seen, I'd have to agree.
  5. JW Insider
    Thanks for the reviews. I read them and appreciated that they not only reviewed his book in detail, but both reviews also offer insight into the complexities and, by highlighting the gaps in Wilkinson's work, provide some key elements for discussion here. I could not get the above Resnick link to work, but I believe the content is also represented here at this link: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/21174
  6. JW Insider
    "ALvi LanguorE iNsanabili: From the very first sentence, right up to the last one, you have reminded me of Allen. I would not have said anything except that the most famous member named Allen has also hinted that he may not have much time for this world due to serious health concerns. I hoped that the Latin was not a commentary on your condition. At any rate, what you have repeatedly done here, so far, is exactly what I was hoping no one would do here. You keep claiming things like "some of Gerard Gertoux's claims can be considered fake news" without any examples or any evidence. With several opportunities to provide something substantial, making claims without evidence can "backfire" and even make it appear (to some readers) that Gertoux's position, in this case, might seem even stronger and more reliable than it really is. I'm sure that this is not your intent, but unsubstantiated claims come across just as empty as the ad hominem. On the issue of "peer review" Gertoux has stated to me that scholars in this field refused to express their personal convictions on this topic, fearing reprisals due to the fact that religious institutions often fund their research and can therefore control the ability to get published. Gertoux himself says he was personally attacked and had to defend himself in the French courts. ( https://univ-lyon2.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae ). Via email, he says this is why he has "become extremely careful and [will] only publish in peer-reviewed journals." Note his last article, for example: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042937130.pdf .
  7. JW Insider
    Possibly fake, but even if it is, it recreates real experiences children have had with teachers.
  8. JW Insider
    Actually, there is a good argument that shows that this is a misleading statement. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that there is already a Greek equivalent, based on transliteration, for using a pronunciation closer to Jeremiah instead of the Hebrew Yirmeyahu. If we didn't know how Hebrew was pronounced for this particular name, we have an ancient record of how it got translated into Greek, where we have much more evidence of the rules of pronunciation. It's in the Greek LXX of the OT. The example of Jesus is used in the same way, rather than something like Yehoshua or Yeshua. But we have the Greek NT which already gives us the form Iesous. (Jesous). We don't have this for YHWH because the LXX either didn't transliterate it, opting instead to continue putting the YHWH into the text, or else they put a different word in it's place: "kyrios" which is nothing like YHWH, and doesn't help us pronounce it. So even the LXX manuscripts that opted to use YHWH are also giving evidence that the word was being treated in a special way, with a certain "holiness" or superstition about it.
  9. JW Insider
    I think you already helped out on this one with your quote above. The WT conclusion is almost exactly like the one you quoted: In other words, the WT says that even though Yahweh was much more likely closer to the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, that Jehovah is the best English form available for the reasons just quoted. Gertoux actually comes close to stating the opposite, that while Yahweh is such a common scholarly form to represent the pronunciation, that the evidence is that "Jehovah" is a much closer form that comes close to the more probable original pronunciation. (This is an oversimplification intended to drive home the primary difference in direction. But in fact, Gertoux finds evidence, he says, that the Tetragram is based more on vowels than on consonants. This is a different argument than, say, claiming that Jahveh is better than Yahweh, or vice versa, because those two are perfectly acceptable as "equivalents.") Personally, that is not the main reason why I thought the evidence should get a second look and that his conclusions should be critiqued on their merit. I am interested in the value of the evidence itself and the background material surrounding this evidence for the purpose of understanding how the confusion came about in the first place, and whether it can help us understand the best way to treat the issue in the Greek Scriptures. That same "side evidence" can come from other sources, too. But Gertoux's known association with "Watchtower scholarship," and his collaboration with one or two others involved in "Watchtower scholarship" made him a best "first choice" in my opinion. Also, I happen to agree with some of his conclusions.
  10. JW Insider
    For me it isn't. Not the exact pronunciation that was used. The question for me is whether a pronunciation was used (or intended) by the writers of the Greek Scriptures (NT) or even the translators of the Greek Scriptures (OT/LXX). So it's in that sense that the "pronunciation" is important to me personally. And it's that particular evidence, which is often considered to be only "side evidence," that I was hoping to help bring to the fore in this topic.
  11. JW Insider
    I think you are saying that the Watchtower's research here is already beyond impressive. I agree that on this topic the Watchtower's research is especially impressive. We have excellent explanations for the reasons the NWT contains God's Name so many times, and numerous examples and manuscript facsimiles to help us understand the LXX examples which have informed the decisions made for adding "Jehovah" to the Greek Scriptures. I think you are also saying that we shouldn't think of a single scholar's work as impressive, or at least we shouldn't think of Gertoux's work as impressive. This is just a statement, however, unless you are ready to counter the lines of evidence used or his conclusions. But again, I hope that this topic does not turn into a debate about whether a particular person or his research is "impressive." I hope that we can look at the evidence itself without reference to what we think of the people behind it. It will always happen to some extent but let's deal with evidence, not with general statements that supposedly allow us to be dismissive of someone's work. Yes, I agree that this isn't impressive either, just as you imply since it's not so different than just another form of Yahweh, which is already known and accepted. Of course, I'd also like to see a link evidencing this "new interpretation" by the Pope. Absolutely. I didn't see any examples or evidence that they have done a poor job, or not. I hope to avoid empty claims. I might offer some of these myself because we all bring our opinions to the table. I hope someone will point out the places where I do the same. There will be times when some of us can agree with each other that something appears to be true by consensus or "common sense" and we can move on without going to the trouble of finding evidence to back up our opinions. But when it comes to merely denigrating the qualifications of a person or group, I hope we can back up such claims with evidence if asked. The work of Wilkinson seems like it's another useful resource which I would be willing to discuss as "another place to start" for exactly the same reasons that I thought Gertoux's work would be a good "place to start." I hope you will feel free to explain what you think he brings to the table that might be useful.
  12. JW Insider
    When I see the word "realnewsrightnow" in a website name, I am inclined to run the other way. I only saw this article when it first came out as a kind of "teaser" by the same author (Hobbus) whose previous article the same month was this one: Nevada Man Who Survived UFO Abduction Says Aliens Asked Him About Jesus Christ February 13, 2017by R. Hobbus J.D. HENDERSON, Nv. – A Nevada man who claims he was abducted by aliens from outer space last month says his extraterrestrial kidnappers attempted to convert him to Christianity while he was aboard their spacecraft. -----that should be enough to get the idea---- At any rate, you say that what finally came out of this, whether fake news or real, was "Yahwe" which of course was already one of the 12th century AD versions of the name that was sometimes printed as "Jahve" (and still is in some language translations: Dutch, German, etc.) If you have any links with evidence referring to any follow-up on this, then I will stop believing that "realnewsrightnow" is anything more than a fake news outlet which was likely intended by the author to show how gullible people are. I'm not worried about admiring anyone for their work. I'm concerned about what kinds of evidence people who have studied the evidence have brought to the table. What he has brought is clearly something new in that it presents a different conclusion to some of the lines of evidence. I think you agree that it is different from the Watchtower's conclusions. I don't wish to abuse anyone's copyrights. Whether the WTBTS, CCJW, Gertoux's, Wilkinson's, or any others. But I hope that more people will be exposed to the current lines of research out there to be able to either counter it, critique it, or even respect it. While I agree that the WTBTS copyrights have been abused all over the Internet, I doubt that the anonymous authors are really making an argument that quotations from Watchtower publications should be limited when it comes to attempting to fulfill our Christian obligation of: CONTINUALLY testing and proving our faith (2 Cor 13:5), pay CONSTANT attention to our teaching (1 Tim 4:16), and bringing out of our treasure store things both old and new (Matthew 13:52) , and NOT HOLDING BACK from telling publicly any of the things that are profitable (Acts 20:20), and not hiding things under a measuring basket but shouting them from the rooftops. (Matt 5:14-16, etc).
  13. JW Insider
    Did you have a reference for this outside of making a connection between Revelation 12 and 1 Thess 4? I have wondered if there is a first century reference about the connection between Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9: (Zechariah 3:1, 2) And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan was standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 Then the angel of Jehovah said to Satan: “May Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, may Jehovah, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! (Jude 9) But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” Of course, where the NWT uses "the angel of Jehovah said to Satan" the KJV and a great majority of translations merely say: " And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto Satan, The LORD [Jehovah] rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? The NWT adds the word "the angel" to keep it from saying" Jehovah said to Satan, May Jehovah rebuke you." There is contextual support for this interpretation in the context (both verse 1 and verse 3) although there is no Hebrew textual or Hebrew manuscript support for the addition. (The NWT is not the only translation to make this addition.) Although Jude was evidently quoting from a portion of the book known as the Assumption of Moses. Although most of the book is missing, it fits the context from parts that still exist today. According to this link, "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus of Alexandra all claimed that Jude is referring to the Assumption of Moses."
  14. JW Insider
    I take it from your "HaHa" and "Confused" icon responses @alvi languore insanabili to some of the posts in this thread that you don't think Gertoux's research is much worth considering. That's fine, of course. But I was hoping that we could avoid making claims about anyone's research in this particular thread without some form of reference or consensus based on some evidence. I don't know anything in particular about whether it conforms to peer review, but Gerard Gertoux (by email) had mentioned that a reading committee for University Press of America had already evaluated the full version of his book: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780761822042 As you know the Watchtower has often made claims that do not conform to critical peer review, and most often, we just give them the benefit of the doubt (myself included). The exceptions for me are usually only in the areas where the Watchtower itself has no longer agreed with the Watchtower, and has therefore made many updates and changes for those many times when things don't make as much sense for them any more. True. From the beginning the NWT committee has consistently held that "Yahweh" is preferable from a scholarly standpoint, but "Jehovah" is preferable for a modern-language, recognizable equivalent. But there are a couple different lines of evidence that something like J Eh-'Ow-'Uah is another possibility. I think that Gertoux picks up on this possibility as a way to show that the WTS may have made an even BETTER choice than they may have understood at first. And I also think that there are several pieces of evidence that he picks up on that we can learn from. For what it's worth. I'm very happy with the choice of Jehovah, and of course it doesn't bother me at all to see Yahweh or a near equivalent like Jahve (NJT) in a translation. None of them seem as natural in an English translation, but that's probably just what I'm used to. Also, not that it matters what I think, but I think the WTS and the NWT committee has done the right thing in adding a YHWH equivalent (Jehovah, for example) back into the Greek text where it was a quote from the OT, because this is obviously a place where even "Lord" had been used as an equivalent for "YHWH." I don't agree with some of the places where it was added, if those places were not quotations, although a footnote could explain some reasonable exceptions.
  15. JW Insider
    I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material). Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says: In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11: 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for 1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that! But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure. *** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah *** When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.
  16. JW Insider
    I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming. A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours." I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul. (1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining. (1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined." So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)
  17. JW Insider
    This is exactly what the resource (from whence the question comes) is claiming: https://www.scribd.com/document/30060328/117-J-W-s-The-Trinity-the-Watchtower 13. Psalm 110:1 ‘The Lord (YHWH3068) said to my Lord (Adonai136) sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’ Watchtower teaching: JWs say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse and since the ‘Lord’ is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be Jehovah God Almighty. In Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the ‘Lord’ referred to by David in this Psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but the one Jehovah speaks to. . . . The JW claim that Jesus cannot be God because Jehovah spoke to Him, is faulty because we who are from the finite earthly realm cannot assume that God who is of infinite heavenly realms must fit into our earthly logic patterns with which we are familiar. God’s ways are greatly above our ways. For example, in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’ (18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33). Note: JWs often mockingly ask the question when Jesus prays to Father: ‘Does God talk to Himself?’ Yes He does, as in Genesis 18:17-19 where God asks Himself a question: ‘And Jehovah said, Am I keeping covered from Abraham what I am doing?’ Later in v. 22 Jehovah separates. Hence the Father can talk to the Son, with the Son still being 100% God. Ask: If you reject the Trinity because you can’t understand it, then how do you explain how a brown cow by eating green grass gives white milk?
  18. JW Insider
    I wondered what the "p. 869" referred to, so I looked it up. These questions are from "The Answers Book" by Keith Piper. The portion discussing the JWs is available on Scribd and at least one other site. There it is introduced with the following wording: The Answers Book, by Keith Piper is a wonderful & effective resource to equip Christians to build up their faith & fulfill the great commission. The contents of this book fall into these main categories: *General Proofs *General Bible Studies *Soul Winning *Church Issues *Second Coming of Jesus Christ *Discipleship *Christian Living *False Doctrines Refuted *False Religions *146 Important Sermons This book is also a great resource for anyone who has HONEST questions about the Christian faith in general, but it also explains why many Christians are also Baptist & Independent. Salvation is NOT in a church or denomination. Independent Baptists do NOT say that they alone are true Christians or that salvation is in their church. "There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength." -Psalm 33:16. There are NO DENOMINATIONS IN HEAVEN. Salvation is in JESUS CHRIST ALONE not a church. "Jesus saith, unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -John 14:6. Thus we are firstly Christians then Fundamental, Baptist & Independent. To Order a hard cover copy of "The Answers Book" for the cost of $25.00 . . . The section #117 starting on about page 822 runs thru page 948 and is called: 117. JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, the TRINITY and THE WATCHTOWER. The book asks the person the asking the question to ask the following: Ask: Did you know that ‘Adonai’ (Lord) used of Jesus Christ in Psalm 110:1 is also used of the Father in Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 3:11? Ask: Can you see that Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-45 was that the Messiah (Christ) would be David’s son as well as David’s God (Adonai)? Question: Does ‘Adonai’ mean Jehovah God? Answer: Yes, for these reasons: 1) It is linked together with ‘YHWH’ (Exodus 23:17). 2) Jehovah calls himself ‘Adonai’ in Isaiah 8:7, ‘The LORD (YHWH) spake also unto me again saying:. . . Now therefore behold the Lord (Adonai) bringeth up ...’ 3) (Gesenius’ Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 12) 4) WE Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of OT and NT Words, p.140 states that ‘Adonai’ applies to God:
  19. JW Insider
    Just to get the discussion going, I'll quote only one sentences from the areopage.net site and the entire initial "abstract" paragraph from the academia.edu site. The first quote is a response a question about whether Jesus pronounced the divine name: In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters2, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come. Abstract. The understanding of God's name YHWH is so controversial that it is eventually the controversy of controversies, or the ultimate controversy. Indeed, why most of competent Hebrew scholars propagate patently false explanations about God's name? Why do the Jews refuse to read God's name as it is written and read Adonay "my Lord" (a plural of majesty) instead of it? Why God's name is usually punctuated e, a (shewa, qamats) by the Masoretes what makes its reading impossible, because the 4 consonants of the name YHWH must have at least 3 vowels (long or short) to be read, like the words [Adonay and Elohim] "God" (a plural of majesty), which have 4 consonants and 3 vowels? At last,why the obvious reading "Yehowah", according to theophoric names, which all begin by Yeho-, without exception, is so despised, and why the simple biblical meaning, "He will be" from Exodus 3:14, is rejected.
  20. JW Insider
    I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here: The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah A subset of that same material is also found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright. Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time. Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it. The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions: Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]
  21. JW Insider
    This is made to sound in the newspaper article as if ALL notes on a judicial matter are destroyed. An official copy of the proceeding is to be kept no matter what. What they want to avoid is the inclusion of multiple notes taken by all the elders that include personal comments, sometimes questions going through their heads to ask or get answered before a decision. Sometimes these, since they weren't meant to be critiqued, can appear to be contradictory or incriminating to one side or another even if they were not intended that way. Also, it is very misleading to say that the rules require a sexual assault victim to go out and find two witnesses. It shows that they are ignorant of the fact that the victim himself (or herself) is already a witness to the crime. Without a confession of course the idea of a second witness is still very unlikely, but circumstantial evidence will be heard from a second witness, and a second witness can be another victim of the same crime from same abuser.
  22. JW Insider
    Never heard about it. The gym had just been put down in the old Squibb bulidings (25 Columbia Heights) and I always meant to get down there and never saw it except when volunteering for overnight guard duty, when we had to walk through all the buildings and turn a key at various points to punch a sort of time card. I only walked through the gym when the lights were out and wouldn't have noticed the mirrors. I don't remember hardly any brothers who went down there for the bowling, basketball and weightlifting. There just wasn't a lot of time for that sort of thing. I heard that you had to pick up the bowling pins and reset them yourself manually. I remember one brother telling me that age 19 to age 25 were the perfect years for weightlifting, but he was skrawny and I doubt he did much himself.
  23. JW Insider
    If that is supposed to be "up-building" it is the worst meme I have ever seen. Sorry, that's all the "props" it deserves. At any moment it appears that "me" will be crushed by anxienty and depression, because the supports are supposedly as flimsy-looking as those in the picture.
  24. JW Insider
    Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members. I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out. But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part. Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made. There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact. On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized. One of my daughter's good friends from high school was a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.) What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?
  25. JW Insider
    This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.
×
×
  • 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.