1 minute ago, Nana Fofana said:You say no-one predicted 1914 or can say what it is that happened that year. You say presence/parousia was expected 1874, but are you aware that a mistranslation in KJV made the period of Judges about one hundred years too long?
I am well aware of the claim, and that it accounted for a portion of the Watchtower's chronology differences. But are you are saying that this is related to why they were so wrong about 1914?
6 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:If you are correct that they considered Parousia to have begun in 1874, and Kingdom begun in 1878 , still in 1914, that Shows that they expected those events to be only discerned "by those earnestly looking to Jesus for their salvation" and that "his return would be in the same manner as that of his going away" and only witnessed by a few, and unnoticed by everyone else.
So you are saying that the reason no one discerned the parousia or Jesus' kingship in 1914 is because it would only be witnessed by a few? So why was it discerned by NO ONE in 1914, if it was supposed to be noticed by a few.
9 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:"Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be."
Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would END, not begin, in that marked year. But then, less than a decade before 1914, they changed this to a time of trouble would begin in that year based on the idea that all human institutions would fail that year, so that it would only be a few months before complete chaos ruled instead of any kings or national groups. So evidently they could not have imagined just how inaccurate that prediction turned out to be.
6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:If you did understand, then you would know that, while the common names for God have been stipulated as being, Yahweh, and then Jehovah by linguistic modifications made for the purpose of a better understanding with respect to “each” modern language? There has been a long time, new, ideology of God’s “real” name to be in the Tanakh, Anochi.
For how long a time has this info about Anochi been "new"? Otherwise, I agree with using either Yahweh or Jehovah, with preference for whatever people understand best in the context of communication. For us , this means "Jehovah" is best, in English, at least. Don't think I'll ever be using "Anochi" for either Jehovah or as some would say, for Jesus (in John 4:26 or 8:28 etc).
6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:Under the prospects of Scholars, some have come to the conclusion that “Elohim” is not of the God of Israel, but a heathen deity. Those are the “facts” I deal with, when, debating with my scholarly counterparts.
Do you have a good answer for those who argue that EL was the name of the Most High Canaanite God, represented usually by a bull? The argument usually goes that they also had a "COUNCIL of GODS" called "The ELs" (GODs), or in their language and Hebrew: "ELOHIM" (plural). The COUNCIL of the Most High, EL, included GODs whose names were JEHOVAH, DAGON and BAAL, for example, depending on the nations/tribes governed by the Most High, EL. Temples to the Most High in the area of Canaan, Palestine, Israel, Judea, etc., would include images and sculptures of bulls. This is supposed to explain why the most valuable sacrifice to Jehovah was the bull.
(Numbers 23:22) 22 God is bringing them out of Egypt. He is like the horns of a wild bull for them.
(Deuteronomy 33:17) 17 His splendor is like that of a firstborn bull, And his horns are the horns of a wild bull. With them he will push peoples All together to the ends of the earth. They are the tens of thousands of Eʹphra·im, And they are the thousands of Ma·nasʹseh.”
*** it-1 pp. 374-375 Bull ***
Bulls were offered in sacrifice by the Israelites (Ex 29; Le 22:27; Nu 7; 1Ch 29:21), and at certain times the Law specifically directed that bulls were to be sacrificed. If the high priest committed a sin that brought guiltiness upon the people, he was required to offer a bull, the largest and most valuable sacrificial victim, this undoubtedly in keeping with his responsible position as leader of Israel in true worship. A bull also had to be offered when the entire assembly of Israel made a mistake. (Le 4:3, 13, 14) On Atonement Day a bull was to be offered in behalf of the priestly house of Aaron. (Le 16) In the seventh month of their sacred calendar the Israelites were required to offer more than 70 bulls as burnt offerings.—Nu 29.
Of course, the primary argument that the Hebrew ELOHIM came from such a source is that the term in the plural came to refer to Jehovah who was ONE God. The ideas of EL and ELOHIM and MOST HIGH and the COUNCIL are supposedly seen in various scriptures such as the Psalm here:
By translating both EL and ELOHIM as God, it's possible to lose sight of the actual argument being made, so here's another take on another Psalm commented upon in Wikipedia, marked in "blue" below:
In the Hebrew Bible, there are multiple descriptions of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts. Some interpret these assemblies as examples of Divine Council:
The Book of Psalms (Psalm 82:1) states "God (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim) stands in the divine assembly (בַּעֲדַת-אֵל ); He judges among the gods (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim)" (אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט). The meaning of the two occurrences of "elohim" has been debated by scholars, with some suggesting both words refer to Yahweh, while others propose that the God of Israel rules over a divine assembly of other Gods or angels.[9] Some translations of the passage render "God (elohim) stands in the congregation of the mighty to judge the heart as God (elohim)"[10] (the Hebrew is "beqerev elohim", "in the midst of gods", and the word "qerev" if it were in the plural would mean "internal organs"[11]). Later in this Psalm, the word "gods" is used (in the KJV): Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High." Instead of "gods", another version has "godlike beings",[12] but here again, the word is elohim/elohiym (Strong's H430).[13] This passage is quoted in the New Testament in John 10:34.[14]
In the Books of Kings (1 Kings 22:19) the prophet Micaiah has a vision of Yahweh seated among "the whole host of heaven" standing on his right and on his left. He asks who will go entice Ahab and a spirit volunteers. This has been interpreted as an example of a divine council.
The first two chapters of the Book of Job describe the "Sons of God" assembling in the presence of Yahweh. Like "multitudes of heaven", the term "Sons of God" defies certain interpretation. This assembly has been interpreted by some as another example of divine council. Others translate "Sons of God" as "angels", and thus argue this is not a divine council because angels are God's creation and not deities.
---end of Wikipedia quote---
But the curious issue of how to translate Deuteronomy also comes up here. For years, most translators found the Masoretic text preferable to the Septuagint because the Septuagint implied that people still remembered the Canaanite idea of a council of gods. (Not just Canaanite, but also Egyptian, Mesopotamian/Babylonian, etc.)
The NWT has:
But, after the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the Septuagint, the RSV, for example changed its translation from the Masoretic to say:
Also:
Commentaries had said that the LXX was probably corrupted because, as the Pulpit Commentary said:
The Canaanite idea was that the Most High divided the nations and gave a portion of the sons of men to each God of the Council. Baal got the Canaanites, and therefore Baal presided in the Council of EL as far as the Canaanites were concerned. Jehovah was given the sons of Israel, and therefore Jehovah presided in the Council of EL as far as the Israelites were concerned. To the Babylonians it was Shamash, the Sun, who presided in the Divine Council.
This "division" might have been said to have happened in the days of Peleg and was facilitated by the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel, about the time of his generation:
Some have tied this idea of each nation getting a guardian angel to the "watchers" of the books of non-canonical Enoch and canonical portions of Daniel. This is why Michael is the guardian archangel of Israel, and other nations have their own guardian angels. This relates to a question that @Anna asked recently on this forum. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47150-why-do-we-understand-the-prince-of-persia-in-daniel-1013-to-be-a-wicked-angeldemon/?tab=comments#comment-69704
1
1
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:Did the apostles honestly believe they were “above” other Christians or Christ? Then why bring up a “false” allegation that somehow Witness are giving “undue reverence” to the Governing Body.
No the apostles did not honestly believe they were above Christ. Some did believe they should be above other Christians, even above each other, and Jesus counseled them about that. (Mark 10:35+) So why bring up a "false" allegation that somehow Witnesses are giving "undue reverence" to the Governing Body? Easy. Because the Watchtower said they were. If you don't believe the Watchtower's claim, take it up with them.
Did you think that the counsel in the 1/16 Study Watchtower was unnecessary?
*** w16 January p. 27 “We Want to Go With You” ***
The counsel given referred to the kind of attitudes matched in the picture above from the same article. Similar counsel was repeated again in the 3/17 Study Watchtower.
*** w17 March p. 9 par. 6 Give Honor to Whom It Is Due ***
Most imperfect humans are strongly influenced by the spirit of SatanÂ’s world. That is why people tend to idolize certain men or women rather than just show them appropriate honor and respect. They place religious and political leaders, sports figures, entertainment stars, and other celebrities on pedestals, often considering them to be almost superhuman. . . . However, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it.
Due to the problem of people worshiping Charles Taze Russell as if they were in a cult, up until at least 1931, Rutherford did all he could to separate from that type of mentality and move that kind of adulation to the theocratic organization itself, rather than a human being. You may have already seen the discussion on this topic linked here:Charles Taze Russell: Was he recently "canonized"?
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:Now these so-called mistakes, by and large, are geared toward “prophecy”. . . . then, how can they claim the Watchtower to be in error?
The Watchtower itself claims that the Watchtower was in error (at one time or another) with respect to almost every prophecy they have ever attempted to explain. It's only the current version of the explanation of any of these same prophecies that is considered not to be in error, unless of course, they also go back to one of the previous explanations and say it was correct after all, which has also happened.
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:I read stipulations like, we must “confirm” for ourselves, what is told by the GB, is factual. That’s fine to a degree. What’s NOT fine, is the overzealous notion, that some, have to, “think” you understand scripture, better than those GOD, inspires and has entrusted (commissioned) to understand scripture for our “benefit”.
I'm sure you think yourself a good judge of what degree is "fine" and what degree is "NOT fine" in this regard. However, there is no scripture that says that God inspires, entrusts, or commissions the GB to understand scripture for our benefit. I accept that they do understand scripture for our benefit, but there is no such commission by God specifically for the GB to do this. We accept their leadership in this regard because it works for unity and peace and consistency in our teaching, which therefore allows for the efficient distribution of Bible-based publications with a common message we can all support whole-heartedly. Every religious group realizes that some can preside better, some can speak better, some can manage better, and some can teach better. Among true Christians today these are considered "gifts in men" where such ministries combine to help to maintain peace and unity in the worldwide congregation, just as they would in individual congregations. So there is nothing unbiblical and nothing wrong with accepting the services and benefits of a Governing Body. But they are not inspired and there is no Biblical commission for this specific group of brothers to teach and understand the Scriptures for us.
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:That in itself has NOTHING to do with the “anointing of the holy spirit” that we all share.
I am pretty sure I don't claim to share in the "anointing of the holy spirit" in the same way that you and others here might claim to share. This might not have been addressed to me, but since I chose to respond I thought I should clear up the fact that I certainly don't claim to be one of the 144,000 anointed.
I agree that there is more to say on these topics, but I think the info about God's name is more relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll bring those points up in my next post.
1
1
34 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:Galatians 2:4
New American Standard Bible
But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
I don't see any direct parallels here, but it is curious that the scripture you used referred to "false brethren secretly brought in who had sneaked in." In the context of Galatians 2:4, it appears that it was at least one member of the "Governing Body" who sent these false brethren.
(Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars,. . .
But it was "Pastor Russell's" own journal "The Bible Students Monthly" that included the following, in 1915, while Russell was still alive. I'll include the entire portion, although it was not the only contribution of its type found in issues of the Bible Students Monthly.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm
How Pastor Russell Ranks in Greatness
Dr. Jackson Analyzes Elements That Constitute True Greatness of the Man
A LEADER IN MANY LINES
His Temperament Poetic, Literary, Scientific, Analytical and Strong for Business
The world seldom recognizes its great men. Few or none saw the magnificent greatness of Lincoln until after his death. To the prominent and learned of the Roman Empire, Saint Paul was only an insignificant Jew; but we can see that in all that constituted real greatness he towered above them all, like a giant among pigmies. So it is today. If you ask "the man on the street," who are the great men of today, he is not likely to name Charles Taze Russell first, but let us see:
C. T. Russell commenced business for himself while yet a boy and with very little capital. When he was eighteen he owned a store, when he was twenty-four he owned five stores and was worth three hundred thousand dollars, and this at an age when John D. Rockefeller had hardly made a start, and J. P. Morgan, with his inherited capital, had but little. If C. T. Russell had devoted his life to business it is easy to guess that John D. would not now be the richest man in the world nor J. P. Morgan have been the prince of financiers.
However, that is the least remarkable thing about the career of Pastor Russell. With all this phenomenal talent for business he gave it all up and surrendered the most brilliant opening for obtaining wealth and power that has ever been offered to an American in order to take up a humble religious work. Such a thing as a man with surpassing wealth-getting power, voluntarily giving it up was unknown before in all history. He made no mistake, for the Master said, "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant." With an insight into the higher things that enabled him to choose aright, he saw from the Scriptures that the time had come for the greatest work of the ages to be done, and as he was the right man for the place, the Lord chose him to be his servant to lead the visible earthly part of this work, namely, the harvest work of the end of the Gospel Age.
In the case of the Apostle Paul the Lord chose a man of great business ability to do his work then, but in this "End of the Age," when business is on a scale a thousand fold greater than in Paul’s day, business talent is all the more necessary, and so the man chosen for His work today is a Napoleon of finance and business.
History shows that other men great in business and finance have not been richly endowed in other departments of the mind, but Pastor Russell in addition to his financial talent has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character. He has a frame of mind that may be described as a poetical mind that gets an insight into deep things by intuition, like a great poet or a Hebrew seer; it is as if Isaiah and J. P. Morgan were united in one individual. Poets are not usually of a logical scientific form of mind but Pastor Russell has these talents also, that is, he has the acute discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer, that can test the truth of things and sift the evidence on which they are founded. Thus the fallacies of the creeds of Christendom were brought to light as they had never been before.
His literary talent would distinguish him among the writers of his generation if he was tested by this alone. Without any special literary training he writes English in a simple and idiomatic style that sometimes reaches the sublime and that will make many passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many sided greatness is his scientific talent. He has the mind of an investigator and student, a scientific love of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the freedom from bias, the willingness to accept truth wherever found, willingness to be corrected, no difference how humble the instrument, in short a mind like Agassiz and Newton. The field of research to which Newton applied himself was the physical world, the earth and sea and sky wherein God’s plan is revealed in regard to physical things. The field of research which Pastor Russell chose was the moral world, the plan of God in regard to mankind as revealed in the Bible. As Newton discovered the great Law of the Attraction of Gravitation which binds the universe together and brings order out of seeming confusion, so Russell discovered the grand "Plan of the Ages" which binds all history together and brings order into the field of theology where before there was so much confusion and error; founding all his teaching upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, his position has been unassailable. The united talent of Nominal Christendom has striven for thirty-five years to overthrow his teachings but has not been able to meet him on his own ground (the Scriptures), with a single fair argument.
Standing, as we do now, in the midst of the battle of Armageddon we can thank God and take courage because the Lord has sent us so great a leader. Courageous as a lion, pure as snow, wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, a knight of God without fear and without reproach, no obstacle can turn him, no danger dismay him, no grief or pain distract him from his grand purpose. His motto is the words spoken for him by the prophets: "For the Lord God will help me; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded."
6 hours ago, Anna said:Say, JW Insider, have you ever sent a letter and received an answer?
Yes. I corresponded with Schroeder and Swingle openly multiple times per year. Starting a couple of years before Brother Schroeder died, I started to send about one letter a year. I don't personally know any current members of the Governing Body except Brother Lett, and recently I have sent extra letters to Bro Splane on the generation, and Bro Jackson on child punishment and child abuse. The letters are not negative, and usually fairly short (believe it or not). They always agree with everything possible, then pose a problem and ask a simple question. The letters sent to them are intended to be anonymous, and I therefore do not expect a direct answer, although I kept a P.O.Box for this purpose for a while, and I always give an email address. But sometimes the answer comes in another way.
I still speak on the phone with a couple persons (might be down to only one, now) whom I have known for years. I have had long conversations even until very recently with Fred Rusk, Ciro Aulicino, and Harry Peloyan until their health became an issue. All of them have been very well aware of my questions. And I have received many answers over the years.
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 ***
On 4/18/2017 at 1:07 PM, Anna said:(although some did put Russell on a pedestal, but he never put himself there). I am not sure when it is that a form of a kind of reverential adoration of the GB started (I am not saying that everyone of us was this way, but many were).
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) ***
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 ***
The 1975 Yearbook says the same:
*** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
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 ***
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 ***
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 ***
Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral:
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 June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says:
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."
2
1
1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:Why don't you go to work on what this scripture means:
"For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" Amos 3:7
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.
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.
-----------------------------
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3
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?’
1
1
5 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:But I say- "Riiight . That's why they don't use the present tense of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. Sure thing, Brah."/ sarcasm
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:
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."
5 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:And sorry if I was inappropriately sarcastic, which is actually pretty much guaranteed, since I'm still not sure if you said this, or what exactly you are saying.
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.
25 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:Many bro or sis in JW congregations are very disappointed and are in dissident mode who knows how long time already, but only few in private circles of trust know that.
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.
25 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:You thought about Barbara Anderson? I like her blog very much.
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.
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:But first I have to learn for driver's license in Sweden
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
3 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:But I say- "Riiight . That's why they don't use the present tense of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. Sure thing, Brah."/ sarcasm
If you were trying to be sarcastic about it then why did you quote a source that agreed 100% with what I said?
5 hours ago, Anna said:Couldn't they just say it was based on new information?
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.
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:(old farm toilet outside the home). Usually riddled with spiders and snakes and anything else.
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
14 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:I understand people that you are inclined to support like Raymond Franz
I don't support Raymond Franz. I think he made some terrible mistakes.
14 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:Then, if you people here are given undue reverence, and "protection" by the WorldNewMedia (Pete) owner, some people will think that you cannot be questioned, therefore, the discussion of the bible is also rendered invalid!!!!!
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.
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:There are some things I have not quite gotten my head around - even given that names could be assigned retroactively, like Peter and the rock, but .... during his lifetime? To his face? Did he introduce himself: "Pleased to meet you. My name is Worthless"?
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 ***
*** it-1 p. 234 Babel ***
*** it-2 p. 39 Jerubbesheth ***
*** it-2 p. 424 Molech ***
*** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth ***
*** it-1 p. 967 Goat-shaped Demon ***
*** it-1 p. 1172 Idol, Idolatry ***
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.
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:
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.
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.
9 hours ago, Anna said:It made me wonder what even was the point of the film?
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.
58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:For whatever it's worth, his family, before becoming Witnesses, included some who claimed psychic status and did water witching.
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.
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:Proverbs 16:28
At least half of the 20 GB members I have listened to over a course of several years seemed to be among the most humble of brothers. I can't say that for about 7 of them, but even where some might have seemed pompous at times, they were still usually likable and personable (F Franz, Sydlik, Swingle). Another 4 of them kept to themselves and didn't say much even during their weekly turns at morning worship from 1976 to 1982. But I have no trouble speaking out clearly and honestly about another 3 GB members who were more often pompous and insufferable to their fellow Bethelites and who even caused harm to the reputation of the Society and Jehovah's name.
(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.
11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:Strange at the qualities associated with leading - as in David, a downright hothead at times (Nabal, for example)
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.
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.
The Name of God - Documentary by Fritz Poppenberg
in Topics
Posted
I don't see any problem with the Watchtower's rendition of known facts. The Watchtower has never addressed the arguments that some scholars bring up with respect to Elohim as it has been related to a Divine Council. I thought you were saying you had addressed this with scholars, so I was interested. What you responded to above is not the same issue. I suspect we agree on all most issues related to God's name -- assuming you agree with the Watchtower's general view on the topic.
Probably the only area where we might differ is how we defend the inconsistent method of the NWT using Jehovah for kyrios in the Greek when it is not a quote or direct allusion to the Hebrew Scriptures.