JW Insider

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book, *** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.” In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so. I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece." It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble. But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes: *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish. Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan): *** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight *** Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same: *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America *** With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"]. *** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany *** For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931: *** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany *** Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell: *** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral: "Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss): "The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says: "Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss. I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all. (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation. But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"? Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong? What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7? So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either. And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions. I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975. ----------------------------- Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook | October 2017 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3 “Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy” Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Your focus was probably on the reason for this practice, which I gave as "because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out." The source you gave didn't include any reason different from the one I gave, but this new answer referring to the idea of an Israeli chemistry teacher gives a different reason which is worth considering. He evidently said it was because as you said: " The word in Hebrew for existence is a form of the name of God, and is not used as it is in English." Then the person who made that comment added the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah which says nothing of the sort. So we could easily consider whether the "zero copula" is due to this particular reason. One point to consider is that after reading the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula we notice that there are many languages that do the same, including Arabic, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Maori, Ganda, Irish, Welsh, ASL, and several Native American languages. Again it's mostly done for the present tense in these languages, too. There are several situations in which we follow this practice in English, too. And we surely don't do it because it's a form of God's name in Hebrew. And these languages with no relationship to Hebrew surely don't do it because of an issue in Hebrew or any similar issue in their own language. It might also be worth considering that even when the name of God was spelled out in Hebrew at a time when there were no prejudices against using the name out loud, the zero copula was already in effect. We see this in at least 350 places in the Hebrew text. One obvious example is the twenty-third Psalm which says "Jehovah [blank] my shepherd I shall not want" יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָֽר So the practice could not very well have started because it is a form of God's name. Even in the context of Exodus 3:12-15 the same practice is found: It's found in the future tense in 3:12 and "famously" found in the present tense in 3:14, of course, but is left out of the surrounding verses: (Exodus 3:13-15) 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is [blank] his name?’ What should I say to them?” . . . 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is [blank] what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is [blank] my name forever, and this is [blank] how I am to be [blank] remembered from generation to generation. Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula." I have no problem with sarcasm in general. It's not usually necessary, but can sometimes help to make a point. It was just that, in this case, you said you were using sarcasm to make a point different from mine, and then immediately quoted someone who apparently agreed with me 100%, so the sarcasm lost its effect.

I believe this, although I don't know if what you think of as "many" is the same as what I think of as "many." One of my concerns was with the idea that so many sisters that my wife knows believe that they suffer more depression than non-JW counterparts due to lack of marital prospects, and some think that their only way of being noticed at all by brothers who are "marriageable" is to pioneer, for example. But this is not possible for all, yet the examples and attitudes presented at meetings/conventions from fellow sisters is nearly always presented by a sister who is also a pioneer. I've known sisters who quit their jobs to pioneer in good part to help solve this issue, which is ironic, because the second most important factor in a sister finding a marriage mate in our circuit anyway, is for the sister to have a job. I wasn't at Bethel at the same time as she was, although I had met her husband a couple times. I have a good friend in the Writing department who STILL has the highest regard for her, even though she is disfellowshipped.

My. You certainly get around. And I was worried a few weeks ago when a hurricane was pounding FL. My sister married and moved to Copenhagen from the US about 15 years ago. Took her several years of Danish lessons before they'd give her a citizenship. We are visiting next week. Last time we visited wanted a Norwegian cruise and missed the chance. Too cold, now, I think.

@Arauna I am a feminist but I still loved what you said in your post. It shows that you are keenly aware of what sisters think, what they go through, and how they should think in order to build up the congregation under their circumstances. You really should consider submitting a version of this to the brothers at Bethel. Your husband apparently knows your value and your values. I'm sure he would help facilitate this if it's not something you feel comfortable with. I know a sister who wrote a couple articles for the Awake! while her husband worked in the Service Department, and another sister (now ex-sister, unfortunately) who was very well respected by Brother Lloyd Barry and both Brothers Karl and Don Adams and put together a huge portion of the Proclaimers book. At least one sister I know is currently involved in research, perhaps there are more.

Bugs and Kisses, JWI

If you were trying to be sarcastic about it then why did you quote a source that agreed 100% with what I said?

Yes, and I'm all for advance preparation and written directives. But as I read the reviews of doctors who try to make sense of our general position about blood from a logical point of view I see that the medical literature already includes assumptions about us that we merely follow the direction of the "Watchtower" and call it "conscience." There have been additional articles in the medical literature that warn doctors that this assumption can be wrong, not because of any variations in how individual Witnesses treat fractions, but because so many Witnesses have evidently told doctors privately that they want all blood products that the doctor considers to be necessary, but that they don't want their family or congregation finding out about it if at all possible. The Watchtower's compromise on the blood issue by allowing fractions has greatly reduced the latter problem just mentioned, because most major Western hospitals have known the benefits of using and storing specific processed components for various purposes instead of using and storing expensive and wasteful whole blood products. On the Biblical issue of "individual conscience" vs "law" the spiritual concern should be that we have put ourselves under law in this regard if we have not made up our own mind. Among many of the Watchtower's writers, it had long been recognized that the expression "Bible-trained conscience" is merely a euphemism for "law." I think this topic was broached already here:

The attached might have been what you were looking for. I would be careful with how such a document is used. I haven't checked if it is up to date, and the use of such material, in case of future issues, could make it obvious to medical or legal professionals that decisions are not actually based on personal conscience, but on opinions provided through excerpts from Watch Tower publications included in the workbook. (For example, if someone states that he or she has based their "conscience" on the workbook, and then decides to update their "conscience" after finding out that the workbook was not exactly up to date with Watch Tower publications, then it might be difficult to argue that their decision was really based on their own conscience.) 209283018-Blood-Workbook-to-Assist-With-Conscience-Matters-Involving-Blood.pdf

@Gone Fishing I guess if you're Bent-on dowsing, and you get the "ley" of the land, then that's the place to go.

When we first moved to Missouri, the first farm-house we looked at in 1964 only had an outhouse, but they had two pumps, a hand pump and an electric pump in the "pump-house." So my father knew he could finish the piping to the house and dig a septic tank. It was a common expression that an outhouse was 50 feet too far away in the winter and 50 feet too close in the summer. They probably found it in the infamous book: Twenty Yards to the Outhouse by Willie Makit, illustrated by Betty Wont and published by Andy Dint

I don't support Raymond Franz. I think he made some terrible mistakes. This might be true, too. If anyone is given undue reverence it can result in trouble. Although I don't know anything about who this "Pete" is, I'll take your word for it. By the way, I had three of my posts in a row deleted with no explanation a couple days ago, until I figured out that I was evidently helping to support "spam" by another member who was trying to promote a personal blog here. I actually found quite a bit in the blog that I wanted to discuss, but I kept referencing the source URL of the blog, which has become a kind of habit that was not considered useful in this case. I finally figured it out when I saw that the posts from the blogger had also been deleted.

I think the explanation is in the slight adjustments to words that the Hebrews used in order to remember how to pass on their stories verbally: *** it-2 p. 457 Nabal *** (Naʹbal) [Senseless; Stupid]. A wealthy Maonite sheep owner who pastured and sheared his flocks in Carmel of Judah. Nabal was also known as a Calebite, that is, a descendant of Caleb. Few Bible characters are so contemptuously described as is Nabal. “[He] was harsh and bad in his practices”; “he is too much of a good-for-nothing fellow [son of Belial] to speak to him”; “he repays . . . evil in return for good”; “senselessness is with him.”—1Sa 25:2, 3, 17, 21, 25. I could guess, but I couldn't say what his real name had been, although naming a kid "Stupid" seems like a self-fulfilled prophecy in the making. Dozens of names were given slight adjustments in the Bible, the most notable of which were the ways in which a false god had his name changed to become something derogatory. Note the implication in this Insight book entry, starting with "Lord of the Flies": *** it-1 p. 275 Beelzebub *** (Be·elʹze·bub) [possibly an alteration of Baal-zebub, meaning “Owner of the Flies,” the Baal worshiped by the Philistines at Ekron. Alternately, Beelzeboul and Beezeboul, possibly meaning, “Owner of the Lofty Abode (Habitation)”; or, if a play on the non-Biblical Heb. word zeʹvel (dung), “Owner of the Dung”]. *** it-1 p. 234 Babel *** (Baʹbel) [Confusion].One of the first cities to be built after the Flood. Here God “confused the language of all the earth.” (Ge 11:9) The name is derived from the verb ba·lalʹ, meaning “confuse.” Local citizens, thinking of their city as God’s seat of government, claimed that the name was compounded from Bab (Gate) and ilu (God), signifying “Gate of God.” *** it-2 p. 39 Jerubbesheth *** (Je·rubʹbe·sheth) [Let the Shameful Thing Make a Legal Defense (Contend)]. The name of Judge Gideon found at 2 Samuel 11:21. Evidently this is a form of Jerubbaal, the name given to Gideon by his father Joash when Gideon pulled down the altar of Baal. (Jg 6:30-32) Some scholars believe that the writer of Second Samuel replaced baʹʽal with the Hebrew word for “shame” (boʹsheth) in order not to use the name of the false god Baal as part of a proper name.—See GIDEON. *** it-2 p. 424 Molech *** (Moʹlech) [from a root meaning “reign as king” or “king,” but with the vowels of boʹsheth, “shame,” to denote abhorrence]. *** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth *** (Ish-boʹsheth) [meaning “Man of Shame”]. Evidently the youngest of Saul’s sons, his successor to the throne. From the genealogical listings it appears that his name was also Eshbaal, meaning “Man of Baal.” (1Ch 8:33; 9:39) However, elsewhere, as in Second Samuel, he is called Ish-bosheth, a name in which “baal” is replaced by “bosheth.” (2Sa 2:10) This Hebrew word boʹsheth is found at Jeremiah 3:24 and is rendered “shameful thing.” (AS, AT, JP, NW, Ro, RS) In two other occurrences baʹʽal and boʹsheth are found parallel and in apposition, in which the one explains and identifies the other. (Jer 11:13; Ho 9:10) There are also other instances where individuals similarly had “bosheth” or a form of it substituted for “baal” in their names, as, for example, “Jerubbesheth” for “Jerubbaal” (2Sa 11:21; Jg 6:32) and “Mephibosheth” for “Merib-baal,” the latter being a nephew of Ish-bosheth.—2Sa 4:4; 1Ch 8:34; 9:40. The reason for these double names or substitutions is not known. One theory advanced by some scholars attempts to explain the dual names as an alteration made when the common noun “baal” (owner; master) became more exclusively identified with the distasteful fertility god of Canaan, Baal. *** it-1 p. 967 Goat-shaped Demon *** Just what such “hairy ones” (seʽi·rimʹ) actually were, however, is not stated. While some consider them to be literal goats or idols in the form of goats, this does not necessarily seem to be indicated; nor do other scriptures provide evidence of that nature. . . . Or, the use of “goats” in these references may be merely a means of expressing contempt for all idolatrous objects in general, even as the word for idols in numerous texts is drawn from a term originally meaning “dung pellets,” not denoting, however, that the idols were literally made of dung.—Le 26:30; De 29:17. *** it-1 p. 1172 Idol, Idolatry *** Often mention is made of “dungy idols,” this expression being a rendering of the Hebrew word gil·lu·limʹ, which is related to a word meaning “dung.” (1Ki 14:10; Zep 1:17) This term of contempt, first appearing at Leviticus 26:30, is found nearly 40 times in the book of Ezekiel alone, beginning with chapter 6, verse 4. The Hebrew speakers took advantage of the fact that only a small change in spelling or vowels could attach a bad meaning to another term. Biblical Hebrew "play on words" was a very common practice, and is found in the words of the prophets especially. But in order to remember a story to pass on verbally, there are often more innocent reasons for the wordplay. For example, in the story of Isaac, you can almost tell that the "Yitzak" from which we get "Isaac" is onomatopoeia for "laughter" and the name means laughter. But the root term is used for several parts of the story. Sarah laughs ("yitzaks") that she will have a child in her old age and this is a significant part of the narrative. (Genesis 21:6, 7) 6 Then Sarah said: “God has brought me laughter; everybody hearing of it will laugh with me.” 7 And she added: “Who would have said to Abraham, ‘Sarah will certainly nurse children’?. . . But the next part of the story is important too, because Yitzak can also mean mean yuk-yuk/tsk-tsk in the form of mockery, and to some, can even imply sexual abuse: (Genesis 21:9, 10) 9 But Sarah kept noticing that the son of Haʹgar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, was mocking ("Yitzack"-ing) Isaac. 10 So she said to Abraham: “Drive out this slave girl and her son, . . . But the relationship between Isaac and his wife is also remembered through the same word as they were yucking it up in the sight of the king, because the word can even imply sexual foreplay. (Genesis 26:8) 8 After some time had passed, A·bimʹe·lech king of the Phi·lisʹtines was looking out of the window, and he saw Isaac displaying affection ("Yitzack"-ing) for Re·bekʹah his wife. So we see who gets the last laugh in this story. These examples could be multiplied, and for some, might even provide an incentive to learn Hebrew.

That's the right question. A bit disturbing when you consider the question at that level, isn't it? Yet, it could have been done fairly and honestly. All the people involved had the ability to present it that way if they wanted to. Then, of course, it would not have the same appeal. And it would only be information already known in scholarly circles. But that would still be of interest even if it admitted questions for further research.

Haven't heard that expression in years. In Missouri, in 1966 just before I was baptized we actually had a whole Witness family in our congregation who were publicly reproved or "put on probation" or something like that for water witching. They had been doing this for years and somehow had come to think of it as a "service" they were providing for their fellow country neighbors who wanted to dig a well. Of course, in this part of Missouri, you could pretty much dig 50 feet down in any solid low area and find the aquifer.

At least half of the 20 GB members I have listened to over a course of several years seemed to be among the most humble of brothers. I can't say that for about 7 of them, but even where some might have seemed pompous at times, they were still usually likable and personable (F Franz, Sydlik, Swingle). Another 4 of them kept to themselves and didn't say much even during their weekly turns at morning worship from 1976 to 1982. But I have no trouble speaking out clearly and honestly about another 3 GB members who were more often pompous and insufferable to their fellow Bethelites and who even caused harm to the reputation of the Society and Jehovah's name. (1 Thessalonians 2:4) 4 but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts. (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . (Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,. . . (Jeremiah 8:8, 9) 8 “‘How can YOU men say: “We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us”? Surely, now, the false stylus of the secretaries has worked in sheer falsehood. 9 The wise ones have become ashamed. They have become terrified and will be caught. . . . (Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open. On a forum where some of us want to discuss Bible questions, it is all the more important to be open and honest about the times when "guardians of doctrine" have sometimes been guardians of traditions that made the word of God invalid. This is part of progressing to spiritual maturity. If the GB are given undue reverence some people will think that they cannot be questioned and then the discussion of Bible questions is rendered invalid.

(1 Samuel 25:22-25) 22 May God do the same and more to the enemies of David if I allow a single male of his to survive until the morning.” 23 When Abʹi·gail caught sight of David, she hurried down off the donkey and threw herself facedown before David, bowing to the ground. 24 She then fell at his feet and said: “My lord, let the blame be on me; let your servant girl speak to you, and listen to the words of your servant girl. 25 Please, do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless Naʹbal, for he is just like his name. Naʹbal is his name, and senselessness is with him.. . . Abigail spoke disrespectfully of her husband and she became David's wife. Others who spoke disrespectfully of their "lord" in front of David did not fare so well. David was nothing if not inconsistent.

Are there some? Not from the heart tissue itself. Transplant patients sometimes have psychological issues however. There are still many transplant candidates who won't go through with it, often out of guilt for having messed up an organ based on their own bad health decisions and realize that by getting the organ from a recently-healthy donor they are taking away from a more deserving person farther down the list of transplant candidates. Those prone to depression or suicide might find themselves more often pondering life-and-death issues which could be a trigger for further depression and risk of suicide. When heart transplants were first attempted, and people thought it Frankenstein-like, made-up stories started to appear about people who got transplants from criminals and then became criminals. Brother Schroeder (GB) started giving talks on this subject, where he made the heart the LITERAL, PHYSICAL seat of motivation, rather than just a representative one. Finally he got his long Watchtower article on the heart published that also made use of this idea. But this and similar articles were still getting responses with data that seemed to debunk it. (The letters I saw didn't come from Witnesses but from professionals who had been told this by Witness patients.) When I first started working for Schroeder as a researcher he wanted me to stay on the lookout for such things, not just about the heart, but about all anecdotes for any type of transplant. This was our position in 1975: *** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News *** It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance. A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23. The second paragraph is, of course, unrelated to the study quoted. Schroeder had linked himself rather closely with the literal side of this, and didn't like the "compromise" claiming that the problem "may be largely or wholly mental." You'd have to know more about the personalities of both Fred Franz and Bert Schroeder to understand a later incident, (below) but it would help to know that Fred Franz was considered "The Oracle" in Governing Body circles and Brother Schroeder was sure he deserved to be the next "Oracle" after Franz died. So Schroeder would even go out and give unapproved talks that made such claims as if he were the new messenger of new truths. Anyway, the "incident" was a Gilead talk that Fred Franz gave, in which you would never suspect that the entire 45 minute Bible-based talk was a tongue-in-cheek "attack" on Brother Schroeder. Most of Fred Franz' talks made it into the Watchtower, often as study articles. This one only got a small mention: *** w77 6/1 p. 352 Examinations Yet Ahead for a Graduating Class *** Before the distribution of diplomas, F. W. Franz also addressed the class. He reminded them of the school examinations that they had had earlier, but then arrested their attention by asking: “Have you had the more vital and serious examination of your kidneys?” He showed from Job 19:27 that in the Bible “kidneys” often represent the innermost recesses of one’s being. So, when Jeremiah 17:10 says that Jehovah ‘examines the kidneys,’ Franz explained, this is not a medical examination, but is done in a judicial capacity. In their postgraduate life, the speaker pointed out, the missionaries will face such an examination of their kidneys. How? In that new situations in life will confront them. When put to the test, what will they really prove to be, deep inside? The psalmist David, though a sinner, did not fear such an inspection by God. (Ps. 26:1-3) Nor should we. Concluding, Franz advised: “Be genuine Christians, not hypocritical, not counterfeit. Be sound Christians down to the core of your personality. If you are, you will pass the examination of your kidneys with everlasting credits to yourself and a clean bill of spiritual health.” The full talk was about the liver, the fat, the kidneys, and took several swipes at the idea that these Biblical representations were to be taken literally in a medical sense. Brother Schroeder was livid afterwards, and was even more anxious to find evidence to prove Brother Franz to be wrong. If I told him that the information he sought was in a library in Japan, I'm sure he would have sent me there. (Before I forget, Schroeder once asked me research his theory that people who were forced to change from left-handed to right-handed at a young age would become diabetic or get hypoglycemia [low blood sugar] problems. I have no idea what the Biblical connection could have been.) I should note that by 1980 the Watch Tower Society no longer disfellowshipped people for getting kidney transplants, and decided to expand this to all types of transplants -- even the heart! *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney? Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. . . . Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. . . . It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant. This was pretty much the end of the line for Schroeder's line of reasoning on this topic. But this March 15, 1980 reasoning had been approved from the nephew of Fred Franz, also on the Governing Body, and there were rumors that this person, especially after his work on the Aid Book, was already being thought of as the next potential "Oracle." This would be Ray Franz, of course, whose research was often reasonable, but which could also be a mixed bag. He was far from perfect, and also far too low-profile and unassuming to be an organizational leader.) It wasn't just about this issue, of course, but immediately after this article was written, Schroeder's personal campaign against R Franz ramped up, and Schroeder led every step of the campaign that resulted in R. Franz resigning from the Governing Body in May.

@TrueTomHarley, They have just opened a new wing of the Museum to cover the most important features of the Anglo-American empire... Visit it just after the Pharaoh Necco exhibit.

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix. Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below that appear to be based on some evidence. I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control. Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.) I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side. The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it. ----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites----------------- A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2 Where the Money Came From On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking: Walter Zaremba Gunther Reibling New York Community Trust A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page: Independent Television Service Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reibling Foundation Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following: Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children. It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba. A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case: BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses. Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba: From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio.. ---------------- Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company] ------------------ Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times: NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.

@Witness Thanks for responding. Too much to respond to right now, but I never had the impression that many who claim to be of the anointed have concerns about doctrinal differences anyway. There are often quirky persons among them, but in my experience, they seem to be quite loyal to the GB, and among the GB themselves, they seem quite loyal to the existing doctrines. Wasn't GB member Martin Poetzinger a person who had gone through Nazi persecution? He never spoke much when I was at Bethel, even though he was on the Governing Body, so I never heard him tell his own experiences, but I understand he spent a total of 8 or 9 years in concentration camps.

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT: (Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision: (Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’” Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here: (Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT) (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you? (NWT) Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.

-----Found it (from a private conversation)... No. It's a common vowel pointing. It showed up this way sometimes in the Masoretic texts about 1,000 years ago. I know you already know that there were no vowel points in the older Hebrew texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Usually it did not include the "o" (holam) point after the first "H". Here's an example at https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septuagint-part-1/ It doesn't say, but it's the Aleppo Codex of Joshua 1:1 . . . . It includes the "e" and the "a[h]" but not the "o". Here's an example at http://danielbenyaacovysrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/parsha-tetzaveh-youshall-command-shmot.html It doesn't say, but it's also from the Aleppo Codex of Ezekiel 28:2 and it includes the "o". I included the picture, because it highlights the tetragrammaton. So, yes, it's one of the possible vowel pointings, which may have been used to remind readers to pronounce with the word ADONAI, ELOHIM, or HA-SHEM, etc. Notice the evidence that this Adonai vowel pointing was NOT supposed to be the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but a replacement pronunciation of the entire word "ADONAI" (Lord). What would happen (sometimes) if the term used in the original Heberw was already ADONAI YHWH? The reader would end up saying ADONAI ADONAI. This happens in Judges 6:22 for example. Judges 6:22 in the same Aleppo Codex, uses different vowel points shown in the smaller picture, attached. These are the vowel points for ELOHIM. It's evidently because it follows the word ADONAI. (Notice that the "o" is left off Adonai here, too.) It's not consistent, as the Ezekel 28:2 passage showed, but the fact that the name has inconsistent vowel pointing is evidence that whatever vowel points are used were NOT intended for pronunciation. That fact alone is evidence that these two vowel pointings become evidence of two ways in which the name must NOT have been pronounced. (Although someone could argue that an exceptional vowel pointing could have been an accidental slip that revealed the actual way it was pronounced at the time of the Masorete scribes.) Â Â

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too. If they are trying to hide this fact they have not done a good job. Obviously, the language and expressions in the video also indicates that it is from Witnesses. There are some huge logical gaffes in the video. Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW) and it is the "Moabite stone "Mesha stele" (from the 9th C BCE) that is the oldest known use of the tetragrammaton example we have in writing. (The Moabite stone, the first tetragrammaton, is nearly 500 years younger than the older trigrammaton.)The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise. On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.). This is argued from its supposed rarity as a standalone name. But Furuli says it's found 20 times in hallelujah, and 19 times as a standalone name, which totals 49 times (20+19=49). His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices. Of course, the name "Yah" is also embedded in many proper names of individuals in the same way that this video had already shown that others like Nebuchadnezzar, Ramses, etc, included the name of their god(s) in their names. This gets discussed starting at minute 21 of the video. Then they show Furuli and Gertoux disagreeing about the importance of the final H, where Gertoux says it means the pronunciation was like the a in "ah" but Furuli correctly points out that it was only "very often" and could also stand for either "A" or an "AE." He indicates through his pronunciation that "AE" means either a short "eh" sound or the vowel sometimes represented by the term "schwa"). Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't. See also http://creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/6-ah-eh.pdf for a different point on the vowel to be included with the ending "H". On the point that the vowels for ADONAI (Lord) were attached to the Tetragrammaton the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH. (YaHoWaH vs. YeHoWaH). But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known. This is the place in the video where Gertoux tries to apply the age-old conspiracy theory that scholars know something but don't want to upset their fellow colleagues. This happens under centralized power structures all the time, but this of course is in direct contradiction to the parallel claim that scholars are always in competition for something new and will sacrifice their own mother for gaining a bit of attention in the academic world. In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories. 6 of the 60 Masoretic manuscripts are known to have the full vowels corresponding to Yehowah. (Note minute 46 of this interview with Nehemia Gordon, the same person interviewed in the Reibling video in your original post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q ) "Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy. (18:52) What they have left out here which is very important is that the vowels roughly corresponding to Adonai were NOT the only vowels that the Masoretic texts applied to YHWH. In the portion of the video about embedding the divine name as part of an individual's name assumptions are made about the vowel pronunciation that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. (Gordon sells books based on the premise that Hebrew was a resurrected language, not spoken for 2000 years, which allows him some extra freedom for "discovery.") There are also known differences in initial vowels that were long and become short based on the pronunciation of the second vowel in a word. Contractions based on syllable emphasis are common and are even seen in the various verb forms. An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted. It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions. (Ezra 10:15) 15 However, Jonʹa·than the son of Asʹa·hel and Jah·zeiʹah the son of Tikʹvah objected to this, and the Levites Me·shulʹlam and Shabʹbe·thai supported them. This only covers some problems from the first half of the video, which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study. I'm sure we shouldn't discount the possibility that "Jehovah" (from "Yehowah") is one of the possible alternatives. If however, the entire point of the Masoretic text was to produce vowel-pointed pronunciations that helped readers avoid the true pronunciation, then they did a terrible job by supposedly giving away the true vowels in some places but not others. I believe I wrote a note to the Librarian here once that had some evidence about this in the Masoretic texts. I'll see if it's still here and post it.