JW Insider

7 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

In the meantime, you've wasted 2 pages of your worthless opinion on this matter.

Even worse! I wasted two pages of R.Franz' opinion on this matter. When I said that PART 2 was mostly commentary on the PART 1 photocopies, I was referring to the commentary R.Franz had included in his book. Only about one sentence [that I bracketed] was my own worthless opinion. The reason I was summarizing the words of R.Franz was to avoid too much direct quotation of R.Franz, lest someone would take offense at the idea of quoting an apostate. Then you subsequently quoted him at length, so I have decided that it's probably for the best that I quote him, too.

Besides, your only good points included the idea that Ray Franz had equated the two situations in the two different countries (which he hadn't according to the very words you quoted from him).

The only other good point you made was that R.Franz had called it a "political" card and that this was proof that he didn't realize that it was a "loyalty" card. But your point was pretty thoroughly discredited when it was pointed out that R.Franz himself had said that the card was really about "loyalty" to the corrupt President Banda.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

I'm still waiting where the Watchtower orchestrated this scheme or endorsed such action.

Why would you wait for that? The point is only that the Watchtower left it up to individual consciences for persons in Mexico, and said that they didn't want' to dictate their conscience. Then for the situation of "alternative service" in other places, and the buying of a 25 cent political/loyalty card in Malawi they made it clear that things like this should never be left up an individual's conscience. In the Dominican Republic and Latin American countries where the same type of situation occurred ---and where the Watch Tower Society has already admitted that similar bribes can be paid to avoid military service--- there were brothers who were serving multiple prison sentences. So, I don't think it was "racism," but something specific about the situation in Mexico. (Trying to figure out if there is any evidence that could lead us to the real reason why this occurred in Mexico, and yet the same principles were not applied in Malawi or other some other Latin American countries, well, that is the point of wasting all this space on worthless opinion, in my opinion.)

PART 3 of 4: [edited: PART 3 of 6]

[Note that the last segment of photocopies included a Mexican Branch letter from 1960, and a Society HQ response from 1960, then included 2 pages from another Mexican Branch letter from 1969 and a 1 page response from the Society's Brooklyn HQ in 1969. The last photocopy shown was an additional portion of the more current 1978 Mexican Branch letter that put all these materials together due to additional questions from brothers whose conscience was disturbed, and due to additional threats and promises from Mexican officials that the illegal bribery practice will be dealt with shortly.]

p.153: The June 2, 1960 letter from the Society in response to the February 1960 letter from the Branch to Knorr indicates that these bribes (called "money transactions") are OK because it's:

• no worse than what's done in other Latin American countries
• paying the bribe allows for freedom for theocratic activities
• it's the responsibility of the bribe-taking officials representing the nation, not the bribe-giving JW
• the bribe is not going to the military establishment but is pocketed by the person taking the bribe
• the brothers offering the bribes are using their own conscience to obtain continued freedom
• it's OK to let this smaller thing pass, as they can prove faithful in the larger test, when and if they were called upon real military situation  [Added comment: Note that this is the opposite of: (Luke 16:10) "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."]

But the same letter from the Society warns them:

• they are on their own if they get caught or get into trouble
• there will be no help from the Society if that happens
• if any brothers were to follow through on the commitment and support of the military that the card implies, then these brothers will be dealt with for lack of Christian neutrality.

p.155: For this portion, it is so central to the point R.Franz wishes to make, three or four full paragraphs will be quoted verbatim:

This will probably take three or four postings so let's consider this PART 2 of 4 [edited: PART 2 of 6]. This part is mostly commentary on what was already presented in the photocopies in PART 1.

p.149-153: RF presented the photocopy evidence from the Branch Committee in Mexico who were still questioning the position that the Organization had taken, and asking for clarification. [Most of the photocopy evidence was already presented in PART 1.]

p.149 summary excerpts from Mexico Branch: "...although the law prohibits the military or members of the Draft Office to make out "Cartillas" by illegal means, such as payment, the great majority of the officials violate these laws. . . . Almost any person, under any pretext, can . . . pay an official . . . so that the document is given to them correctly legalized [completed/"liberated"]. In Mexico this is very common."

p.150-1  [It appears that the reason the Branch Committee wants a clarification in 1978 is because the illegal bribery situation now appears to be on more dangerous ground in the previous few months, and they have been following instructions from Brooklyn that have not been updated for nearly 20 years.] The Branch references an updated 1977 Mexican law, and quotes a new recent threat from the military on May 5, 1978 where this law is now going to be enforced, announcing to 100,000 draftees in front of the Mexican President, that "the army will not tolerate illegal operations to obtain Military Service 'Cartilla' . . . . so that in brief period of time the . . . unlawfulness will be eradicated . . . to obtain their 'Cartillas.' " The Branch admits that this is illegal, but easy to do, and that the card is useful and sometimes required for employment and travel.

p.151 The Branch also admits that most of the publishers who have it, many who are now elders and circuit overseers, illegally obtained the card that claims they supported the military. Note: "Publishers who wish to obtain a 'cartilla' go to one of the Draft Boards . . . then . . . they go to someone they know with influence or directly to an official. For this they have to pay a certain amount of money (according to what may be asked). In this way the publishers obtain their 'cartilla' or the majority of them have it."

p. 152 RF was assigned to visit Mexico and Latin American countries in November 1978 [he often got these assignments because he spoke Spanish after his years as a missionary under Trujillo in Dominican Republic] and the Mexican Branch assures him they are still following the counsel and direction from Brooklyn, but that it is specifically the situation in Malawi that has caused many brothers in Mexico to "feel disturbed in their conscience." They still follow the instruction from 1960 when they had questioned the action, where they also admitted that back in 1960 that it has been the custom for publishers to pay the "bribe" and many of them are congregation servants and circuit servants. [See PART 1 for this letter to N. H. Knorr dated February 4, 1960.]

p. 153-9 The Society's responses begin in a letter dated June 2 1960 included here, attached below, along with additional communications on the matter from the Branch and the Society Headquarters through 1969:

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Please note that on each of the Governing Body's passport applications it it crystal clear that it is an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ... and that before Jehovah God they all swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" ... and WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION, AND THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES,  FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

This type of situation has always resulted in double-think (a form of NON-thinking) or, as the psychologists say, a form of "cognitive dissonance."

*** w76 12/1 p. 712 Insight on the News ***
What Makes a Good Citizen?
● A Danish family was recently denied Canadian citizenship by the Federal Court of Appeal. Yet Mr. Justice George Addy of the court wrote that “both Appellants impressed me as being good, honest people with a deep religious faith which they translate into action in their daily lives. They are members of the movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Both he and his wife are apparently strong believers in the work ethic and have never taken advantage of the social benefits provided for in our society. . . . Their children are exceptionally clean-cut and alert and the family from all appearances is a model one.”
Then why the denial of citizenship by this very judge? “The single obstacle to a grant of citizenship,” writes Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario law faculty, was the fact that, in taking the oath of allegiance, they would not agree to participate in any war effort.

The very person who wrote this knew that in his own "Oath of Allegiance" he had promised to participate in the defense of the constitution from all enemies, both foreign, and domestic. His wife took almost the identical citizenship oath referred to in the article.

Saluting the flag is just a preamble to the more serious "pledge of allegiance" that adults will be asked to sign or affirm if they are changing citizenship or will travel outside the country. The same person who wrote this also has claimed (to others) that he is finally withdrawing himself from defending the Watchtower's position on blood, after a quarter-century of not personally believing what he was famous for strongly defending. (For that matter, Ray Franz also claims that he defended the 1914 chronology for several years after discovering it was not Biblically supported, while researching the Chronology article in the Aid Book.)

In an almost related story, I've read (never confirmed) that the reason the Society changed their views against vaccinations was because several brothers needed to travel to other countries, and vaccinations were required for travel.

@AllenSmith I appreciate the snide name-calling for reasons I stated before. It makes it easier to make a point when the other person is forced to resort to ad hominem. Caesar Augustus was a murderous dictator, as was Tiberius, yet when he or his military representatives asked for a coin with his name on it, even if that coin called him "a God" the Christian should hand over that coin. Why? Matthew 17:27 says so as not to cause a scandal or so they won't be offended. If the military representative of the murderous Tiberius Caesar, asked for your coat or impressed you into service to march with him for 1,000 paces, would you offer 2,000? Would you offer more than just your outer coat? Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't, but it shows you that Jesus wasn't asking us to judge the authorities on the basis of their specific morality or lack of bloodguilt, and he did not speak out against specific kinds of loyalty to others. But if it relates to "worship" then all Christians should have a problem. 

Another mistake you make is pretending that I think Ray Franz must be correct on this point. He was just as capable of making a mistake as any other member of the Governing Body was. I got the impression that his overall idea was that some individual Christian consciences would more easily say that the problem in Mexico was a real matter of keeping our worship pure and untainted, avoiding being a liar. And some other individual consciences would more easily say that adhering to the demands of a murderous dictator who asked for loyalty to the only party in the country, might be no different than accepting citizenship of say, Rome, another state where a murderous dictator demanded loyalty. Only if that obedience to a man conflicted with pure "worship" might there be a problem to that particular conscience. Ray Franz as much as says this here on 148:

21 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

The issue hinged on the fact that the card was a “political” card representing membership in a “political” party.

I don't see where he says it was ONLY a political card. Also, I can't see why you are speaking as if it were not a political card. Isn't that the way all of us described it? We never called it a loyalty card, and if we had it surely would have still brought up the same question about "to him who calls for the honor, such honor."

*** w76 8/15 p. 491 Insight on the News ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi have experienced brutal persecution because they maintain Christian neutrality and therefore refuse to buy a political card that indicates membership in the Malawi Congress Party. (John 17:16; 18:36; Jas. 1:27) Yet, they show proper respect for governmental “superior authorities.”—Rom. 13:1-7.

*** w70 4/1 pp. 218-219 pars. 15-16 When Building Disciples, Motivate the Heart ***
Because they refused to buy a political card, they were beaten severely, sexually assaulted and their property was destroyed. Yet President Banda of Malawi could not get them to break integrity and renounce their God Jehovah. These Witnesses were motivated from the heart. They had true Christian qualities built in them.
16 When a Christian witness of Jehovah of Ntifinyire Village was beaten for refusing to purchase a political card, Banda’s youths took a knife and made cuts encircling his arms and then his legs and inflicted many cuts on his head.

And of course, the real important question was whether an individual conscience might see it as a tribute, or honor, even if out of fear: [After all, yes, everyone knew he was a brutal, fearsome dictator who had killed many.]

(Romans 13:5-7) 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.

No one ever called it a loyalty card, in the Watch Tower publications, but I did see that Raymond Franz was one person who implied that it included this idea on page 145:

51 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Or what about JW Insider?

I stumbled upon the site through a Google search almost 3 years ago. I started posting on jw-archive.org, and some messages on the site asked posters there to move over to theworldnewsmedia.org. I have received 2 private messages from The Librarian, and I think I remember messaging Eoin once, but I do not know either of them, and no personal info was exchanged. I believe Eoin is likely using his real name, but I have no idea who The Librarian is, much less the _aD'-M_iN, whose name probably has not been pronounced correctly for several centuries. (Some say ADMIN; some use a differing vowel structure and say IDI-AMIN.) I recognize one "real" person who has posted from the area of a mid-west congregation I am familiar with. And several persons have recognized local names of particular JWs we know in common. But it's not my plan to try to ever concern myself with personal details of anyone who has not chosen to give out those personal details. (That's just about everybody.)

I think that a few people (e.g., Jay Witness) have stated some bits of the history of their affiliation with the Witnesses.

So here's what Raymond Franz said [summarized with excerpts]:

This will probably take three or four postings [edited: it took six] so let's consider this PART 1 of 4 [edited: PART 1 of 6].

p. 144-5: RF says the info from Mexico was startling, disquieting and in stark contrast to the organizational position adopted toward Malawi. RF then describes Malawi persecution related to the purchase of a "party card" and says the vast majority of JWs in Malawi held firm to the position that buying the "party card" was a violation of Christian neutrality, even at great personal cost, and in a few cases, even the loss of their life.

[edited to add p.146 does not appear in any way to imply that R.Franz equated the situation in Malawi with that of Mexico. This page sets up the idea that politics often becomes corrupt, but not everything related to politics is always bad. RF appears to be setting up the possibility that, to some individual consciences, for certain aspects of politics, Romans 13 can apply, speaking of the political state as "God's servant" or "minister." {Paul found value in his "citizenship" of the corrupt Roman state.} This sets up the idea that there may have been more room for individual conscience with respect to purchasing the one-state party card, and less room for individual conscience with respect to the idea of giving bribes to lie about having met the requirements of military service.]

p.145-9: RF says that, while his own thinking is still not dogmatic on this point, individual JWs might find reason to question their conscience about whether the purchase of the party card for a one-party state was not the same as accepting that they were obedient citizens of the state, rather than it being considered "an act of worship" comparable to early Christians offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor, for example. If that were the case they may have considered Scriptures including Romans 13:7, Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 5:41, and Romans 14:1-3,23. RF mentions that the subject of "alternative service" came up regularly to the GB, and at this time in the light of the Malawi persecution, statements were mostly on the side of absolutely no hint of compromise. Quoting mostly memos submitted by GB members, RF included the following on p.148-9:

We want no grey areas, we want to know exactly where we stand as non-compromising Christians.^{8 [Lloyd Barry]} . . . doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is . . . a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one’s obligation to Caesar’s war machine. . . . A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly.^{9 [Karl Klein]}  For one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a “deal” with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God.^{10 [Fred Franz / William Jackson]} . . .  We should have a united stand all over the world. We should be decisive in this matter. . . . If we were to allow the brothers this latitude we would have problems. . . . the brothers need to have their consciences educated.”^{12 [Ted Jaracz] . . .}  Those who accept this substitute service are taking the easy way out.^{14 [Fred Franz]}

RF says these strong positions were all taken by persons very aware of the situation in Mexico, especially because RF presented the documents himself as part of the discussion on military "alternative service." The following was included from material that had been sent by the Mexican Branch Committee [posted without comment which will be added in next post]:

39 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I posed a question to Raymond: “how can a “loyalty” pledge be equal to the construct on military service.

I just skimmed the chapter focusing on areas where this idea would have come up. I see that Raymond Franz never said that a loyalty pledge was equal to the construct on military service. In fact, he explicitly states the opposite. Which edition did you read that gave you the impression he had equated the two? I have the first and the pdf link to the fourth (last), so I can't imagine that he said something so different in the second or third.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The majority of Mexican nationals complied with government laws, and that would include Witnesses.

That appears to be an assumption. If you have evidence for the specific period in question, then that might be interesting. My guess is that the majority of Witnesses really were "draft-dodgers" by paying the bribe wherever possible. I'll read through the chapter by R.Franz and see if it adds any useful info.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s my point you just justified for me. “your” reliance on an “APOSTATE” book that is riddled with misinterpretations, just like your endorsement for Calf Olof Jonsson.

I'd like to consider your points about the disparity later, but for now I will address these extraneous points and your question.

I am not reliant on a book by Ray Franz nor do I endorse Carl Olof Jonsson. As you probably are aware from many posts on the subjects where their names come up, I do not think that what either of them have said on any subject is meaningful at all to my relationship with Jehovah or the Organization. As far as I can tell, I'd be, feel and believe exactly the same way if neither of them had ever existed. The Bible says we need nothing to be written to us about chronology because chronology is not to be a part of our faith. Patience and all the other fruits of the spirit, along with reliance on Jehovah and his Word are important. I appreciate what I've learned about patience when I dialogue with you, too, and I often see myself failing in this respect. All of my views on chronology and the Biblically-supported secular dates of events during the periods in question rely absolutely 0% on anything C.O.Jonsson or R.Franz have said. On this subject of Malawi and Mexico, I have no current concerns about it. I think they have all been taken care of.

If Ray Franz brought up some points of concern, then I appreciate that too. After all:

(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Is it any different when you say the same thing, but in a more appropriate manner? I think not!! I'm just NOT a hypocrite to mask my true form.

True. It would not be any different, but the truth is that I never say the same thing in any manner. That's because I don't believe you are either a fool nor is Satan your God. I shared and still share many of the same feelings you have about attacks on the Witnesses and attacks on the Governing Body. I think most of what comes up by opposers is a foolish waste of time. But, as I've explained, there are also several areas of concern that we ought to consider. For that matter, I can say for a fact that persons in the Writing Department and a few people on the Governing Body took what he said very seriously and even made adjustments based on some of the things he said. No one in the Writing Department or Governing Body, as far as I know, ever said that anything Raymond Franz claimed was wrong or "riddled" with even one, single misinterpretation as you say. As far as I could tell, everyone in positions of higher responsibility felt that all his facts were correct. The WTS never claimed that anything he said was incorrect in any way.

There was, on the other hand, an attempt to counter some of C.O.Jonsson's ideas, but, of course, in his case, these were not really Jonsson's ideas, but the ideas shared by nearly all the experts and professionals who study the particular range of chronology that he studied. He happens to agree with these others, so there is really no reason to include his name in any discussion of the chronology he studied. It's almost as if someone doesn't like vegetables, yet expert dieticians claim vegetables are healthy, so it's pointed out that Hitler was a vegetarian.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

But may I also remind you the lengths you people went through last year to "delete" my comments while you allowed such advent lies to continue? You must have a different definition to what the word "FACT" means.

I saved those deleted posts, most of them at least, and I can assure you that you were not deleted for presenting any facts. Perhaps you do not remember, but you were attacking and insulting other posters with a vengeance! In a post above, you say:

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I'll state it again, aside from agreeing with fools, it doesn't make the argument any more factual unless your God Satan gave you a personal inside scoop, get JWinsider!!!!

Calling people fools and saying that their God is Satan is really quite mild compared to the type of slander, name-calling, attacks and insults you were putting people through. Fortunately, you seem to reserve a good percentage of your venom on me, instead of many of the others, here. Also, you have changed your tone much of the time, so that you now tend more toward a kind of sarcasm and snide comments instead of going right after the person directly. Either way, I hope you stick around (under one of more of your aliases) at least, because the kind of people who are interested in truth and facts can usually figure out why anyone would resort to these diversionary tactics. In that way, the ad hominem attacks actually help. They don't help everyone, of course, but at least such tactics provide a kind of a "touchstone" by which to measure a good rational idea from another kind of idea.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

C'mon...surely someone knows the facts!

While I was at Bethel, I really knew nothing about the WTS condoning Mexican bribes. I knew that it was by choice that the WTS had decided to set themselves up as a cultural organization, and had voluntarily decided not to have prayer, and not use the Bible in the door-to-door ministry. I asked Brother Bert Schroeder about it right after Ray Franz' first book came out (I was no longer at Bethel) and he was well aware that this was now seen as a "scandal." He said he wasn't sure how soon anything could be done about it. I then asked a roommate, who was still at Bethel in 1985, and he said it was only so that the WTS could own property in Mexico that the entire arrangement was the way it was there.

I had not made the comparison to Malawi, but my fiancee (now my wife) and I hosted Jack and Linda Johansson for a three hour dinner, during the 1979 visit of the Branch Overseers to Brooklyn. He was the Branch Overseer in the Congo until he was kicked out just two years earlier (1977) when the WTS property was confiscated there and he was accused of working for the CIA. The government in the Congo had just executed religious missionaries and leaders from other religions. Brother Johannson had been in Malawi before and during the ban, there, too. He spoke with President Banda several times about it, starting in 1964. In fact, I think he said he was assigned to Malawi straight out of Gilead, several years earlier (although Malawi went by another name then.) Brother Vigo was the Malawi Branch Servant during the terrible persecution. We talked a lot about Malawi, and I didn't know enough to ask about the double-standard between Malawi and Mexico. Of course, he never mentioned anything to my fiancee or me about any controversy.  (I would not have expected him to, but I mention this because he, Jack Johannson, evidently did bring it up to a Governing Body member during the same visit.)

I think anyone who really wants to know the truth of this matter will have to rely on the book Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, which can be found as a PDF here: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/franz01.pdf

It's in Chapter 6 called "Double Standards." In the 2004 edition found at the link it's on pages 142-169. It's on slightly different pages in my edition.

It appears he knows the facts and he provides plenty more documentation, too.

On 5/26/2017 at 7:54 PM, AllenSmith said:

Wow! talk about FAKE NEWS,

This "News" was absolutely true, not fake.

But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society  had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico.

When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read.

So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.

1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

If you take a look at the four letters YHWH in the Dead Sea Scrolls , they are FOREIGN to the rest of the script both as to STYLE and also the SLANT of the letters. These are in PALEO Hebrew an ancient alphabet prior to the Babylonian captivity. They are not in conformity with the previous written script.

Which tells me that they weren't trying to hide anything, and considered the name sacred. Someone left the space for the name to be added later, so they must have known that another scribe or a different preparatory process was going to be used when the YHWH was going to be added. Adding the name in Paleo-Script reminds me of those who feel they must use 400-year-old English (typically from 1611, KJV) when they quote from Scripture, even if the rest of their sermon or writing is in modern English.

But it also strikes the eye as something that is special, and gives them pause before pronouncing the name, just as putting the wrong vowel markings supposedly stopped the Masoretes from accidentally pronouncing the word out loud, and led them to use  the word Adonai or Elohim instead. The vowels for each of those words have been found with the YHWH in Hebrew.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

I should add that I have no idea whether these so-called acrostics are purposeful or not, or if they really are random or if they were put there on purpose either in the original text or a later text. I might find them problematic if we put a lot of emphasis on them, because then it would seem that we weren't using the same measure of wisdom and discretion in comparing 100 other places if these were really so special. Also, Esther seems to have one of each type. If this is something very significant, then the odds are good that these were designed on purpose. But trying to read into the differences of each type - backwards, forwards, end letters, beginning letters, and one "I am" for good measure has resulted in the same type of thinking that goes into reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, bird entrails, and zig-zagging vents and gutters in the great pyramid. Little find-a-word puzzles seem NOT to be a true reflection of the all-powerful Almighty God, Jehovah. I wouldn't put it past a later copyist, though.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

Is there an LXX awareness of these?

They are apparently random. Hebrews used alphabetic acrostics in psalms and poetry because it provided a mnemonic. Imagine trying to remember a Psalm of 172 verses like Psalms 119 if it didn't make use of an alphabetic memory aid. But there is no evidence that the Hebrew readers who translated the Hebrew to Greek for the LXX even noticed them in Esther. Also, these are some of the most common letters in Hebrew, and they are at apparently random, non-poetic places in the book. This is also true of where they show up in at least 50 or 60 other places in the Bible but never got noticed - because those books didn't go through a canonization debate and already used God's name, sometimes right next to the so-called acrostic. First Chronicles has more than a dozen of them, in obviously random places. And, just like in the book of Esther, sometimes, to make them work, you have to use the beginning letters of four consecutive words for some, and the final letters for some, and you have to read forward on some and read backwards on some.

This gives evidence that it was just wishful thinking that forced people to look even harder at the book to try to find the divine name in it, or perhaps that the text was purposely manipulated to give Esther an edge in canonization. (But the fact that no one just went ahead and added YHWH to the text, makes Micah's point even less relevant.)

Laurence A. Turner wrote an essay for a publication in a scholarly journal in 2013 that kind of sums up the idea in the title: "Desperately Seeking Yhwh, Finding God in Esther's 'Acrostics.'" https://www.academia.edu/6370833/Desperately_Seeking_YHWH_Finding_God_in_Esthers_Acrostics_

In that work, it is mentioned that you can even find Satan in the book of Esther at least twice by using the same methods. (Of course, a real numerologist would simply say that this means that God is twice as powerful as Satan, and some would undoubtedly nod their heads without questioning whether God is actually 7 or 10 or 100,000 times more powerful.)

Edited to add: Just noticed a footnote in the work quoted by Turner. Previously I had seen someone who found about 60 instances. Turner claims to have found over 100. My guess is that there are probably even a few more. Here's his footnote:

Quote

Not including those in Esther, there are 102 examples: initial consonants read left to right (60) and right to left (27); final consonants read left to right (4) and right to left (11)

Starting with the basics, we have a quote like the following from the source: "The Divine Name Yahweh" already mentioned above. For ease of reading I'll transliterate instead of merely trying to reproduce Hebrew and Greek characters.

THE proper name for God as the covenant God of Israel is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH). The original pronunciation is uncertain. By inference from its contracted forms in compound names -- יו (YW) or יהו (YHW) at the beginning, or יה (YH) or יהו (YHW) at the end¹ -- it appears to have been pronounced Yahweh, and this is confirmed by independent testimony to its transliteration as 'Iabe² or 'Iaoue.³ The tetragrammaton occurs some 5321 times in the OT and a separate short form of the divine name  יה (YH), 25 times.⁴

We count 6,823 instances of YHWH rather than 5,321. But in general we agree with the ideas mentioned. The Foreword in the1950 NWT says that Yahweh is preferred as more accurate, although Jehovah is kept for recognizability and consistency.

The footnotes included in this quote might be good for future reference:

¹For the philological reasons for connecting these forms with יהוה, see J. Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, p. 611; B. Stade, Hebrew Grammar, par. 113; S. R. Driver, Studia Biblica, 1, pp. 4-6.

²Pronounced so by the Samaritans according to Theodoret of Cyros. See Quaestio 15 in Exod 7: kalousi de auto Samareitei IABE, 'Ioudaioi de AIA

³So Clement of Alexandria. See Strom. 5, 6, 34: to tetragrammon onoma to musticon ho periekeinto hois monois to aduton basimon en legetai de 'Iaoue.

⁴The forms יהו and יהה (probably erroneous) are found in the Elephantine Papyri.

I should mention that it's likely that in a discussion of this type, that either form, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," will be used interchangeably. I prefer Jehovah as a common usage pronunciation, but as stated in another recent thread even the Watch Tower publications have said that Yah-weh' is likely more accurate:

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way, we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.

2 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

Don't forget they were all copies.  There is absolutely NO PROOF that the Tetragrammaton was ever in the text of Scriptures prior to the Babylonian captivity and up to the time of Malachi.

I think this is backwards. The evidence shows that the name was used more often in the earlier texts and began to be replaced in later texts. The entire book of Esther, for example, which was written later than the Babylonian Captivity, does not contain the name YHWH at all. Later Psalms show the same evidence. Books that scholars date as later, even where most fundamentalist believers do not accept the dates (Daniel, Ecclesiastes) also provide some pieces of evidence to the same trend.

11 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

YAHWEH is NOT a HEBREW NAME. It is ARAMAIC, which is closely related to HEBREW.

Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo Hebrew and nearly all the existing manuscripts, including the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in the Babylonian Aramaic alphabet.

These four letters YHWH are Babylonian Aramaic. They are NOT SACRED and they are NOT HOLY.

That's a jump in logic that requires you to believe that the same name (YHWH, not a specific pronunciation) was added in about 6,000+ places in the Hebrew Bible. It turns this entire topic on its head because it means that you reject all the evidence for the correctness of the Hebrew text. And then you see it as a problem that Witnesses generally believe that the Greek text was tampered with.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to start a brand new topic that goes through much of the scholarly evidence about the relevant Bible texts, but sticks more closely to that evidence and does not veer off on so many other topics.

4 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. “Yah” (#H3050) means “god”. “Hovah” (#H1942) translates to “eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness.”

That's just evidence that it would probably never have been pronounced that way by people who speak Hebrew. The Watch Tower publications have also sometimes stated a preference for "Yahweh" as the more correct pronunciation, and "Jehovah" only as a more consistent and familiar pronunciation:

*** w02 4/1 p. 5 Search for God With Your Heart and Mind ***
Some scholars prefer the rendering “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” [neutral]

*** w80 2/1 p. 6 Does God Have a Name? ***
“Yahweh” (sometimes “Jahveh”) is simply an attempt to express God’s name in a form nearer to the original Hebrew.

*** w63 11/1 p. 650 par. 5 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial ***
. . . the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, as some critical clergymen prefer to pronounce it today.

*** g99 2/8 p. 8 Identifying the Only True God ***
Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.

*** g73 3/22 p. 27 “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”? ***
And further, the form “Jehovah” has a currency and familiarity that “Yahweh” does not have. “Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated.

*** su chap. 1 p. 8 par. 8 What Will Become of Planet Earth? ***
Much of the Bible was written originally in Hebrew, and in the Hebrew Bible text God’s personal name appears nearly 7,000 [6,823] times as a sacred tetragrammaton (יהוה). Some translators render it as Yahweh, but in English the most commonly used form of the name is Jehovah.

*** na p. 9 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation ***
Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way, we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.

1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

Also God has given Jesus a position worthy of worship to the Glory of the Father.

Philippians 2:9-13  For this reason also [because He obeyed and so completely humbled Himself], God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow [in submission], of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess and openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord (sovereign God), to the glory of God the Father.

As you know, we understand this as not direct worship of Jesus, but "relative" worship of Jehovah that can now only go through Jesus. Israelites bent the knee to their king, who was in effect a "Mighty God" to them, but understood that the Sovereign Lord Jehovah was the true Almighty King.

I think you have jumped the gun when you insert "sovereign God" to verse 11.

I should add that Jesus as the true Spokesman of God's own word, makes the spokesperson analogy of relative worship, just as strongly as the sovereignty analogy. Note Moses's position as spokesman (the one who gives Aaron the words) between God and Aaron, the spokesman for Moses:

• (Exodus 4:15, 16) 15 So you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with you and him as you speak, and I will teach you men what to do. 16 He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him.

When we confess the good news about God and Christ that we learned through Jesus (the "Greater Moses") we are witnesses or spokespersons of someone who serves as God to us. It doesn't make Jesus the "Almighty" sovereign any more than Moses was the Almighty God, just "God."

41 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

But I haven't known of any occult groups use Jesus name.

A few of them also used Jesus' name from evidence I've read.

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Why would not autism be counted as a modern day plague? 

I agree completely. I have no doubt that such things and many more that we never thought of before will plague mankind. My point, however, is that there have been certain types of plagues and diseases that mankind thought they could do nothing about. Then some people start putting two and two together and realizing that some of these things are based on "cause and effect." When enough of these realizations come together, the effect can be unexpectedly positive.

I think we have the entire world population as evidence of this. Populations of anything under normal circumstances without interference grow on a curve, something like the exponential curve you'd get if you graphed the x² function. Yet, for thousands of years the population grew in a more subdued linear fashion, effectively flat, until suddenly in the last 100+ years, the growth shot up like the shape of a hockey stick. The largest single factors include "soap & clean water" and a better understanding of cause and effect where disease and plague comes along. Granted there were also wars in China and around the world that killed hundreds of millions in the several hundred years prior to 1919, but there have been huge death tolls in wars since 1919, too. The major explanation, therefore, is that something was done about the problems of plagues and disease through human understanding.

For this reason, I thought it unwise to appear to be dismissing all the attempts to try to do something about the worldwide plague of child sexual abuse, just because we expect it to get worse. The Catholic Church has held internal conferences and even invited people of other religions to help them to try to brainstorm ideas that can help. The judge, McClellan, of the ARC has made suggestions to the Catholic Church and has looked for ways to get some good ideas implemented while accommodating the process structures of the religions and institutions he has now worked with. If a religious institution appears to have a problem admitting that they have a problem, or does not appear to want to accept help or does not wish to provide suggestions to give help to other institutions based on its own experiences, I think this makes that institution look worse than it really is.

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Post something that Glorifies God, not yourself!!!!

• 1
•  

JWTheologian reacted to this.

I used my immense powers, based on "fearsomeness," and yes, even my newfound "Glory" to get the title of this thread changed. Actually, it really was based on the good counsel of AllenSmith a.k.a. JWTheologian.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

"My Bethel friend used to tell me how visiting speakers from the hills would rail on about the wickedness of the big city. It made him squirm - ‘New York City is our home,’ he’d say.

I had the NW corner of the 10th floor. Nearly all the NW and SW corners facing the NYC skyline were assigned to Governing Body members, and the few that weren't taken by them were assigned to 4 Bethelites at once. But these rooms each had their own bathrooms (in other buildings you could share one down the hall) and you'd still have more than double the space you would get when 2 roommates shared a smaller room. They rounded me up to 4 years of seniority on "day 1" (by including the few of months of auxiliary before regular pioneering). The Towers Hotel was just opening up, and in fact a few old ladies still lived in the building from time immemorial. A few allowed themselves to be moved (consolidated) into new identical apartments on another floor, but after a certain age, no reasonable offer can make a person leave their "ancestral home." So we basically waited until they died. (Although some on the construction crew would joke that we offered a little encouragement in that regard when jackhammers touched adjacent walls and ceilings.)

There were still a few floors that couldn't open up for Bethelites for a couple more years because of this. As they opened up, however, there was a little less demand for this room, as most "bidders" didn't want to share a room with three others. Bert and Charlotte Schroeder had a SW corner, same size as the one I was in, that somehow looked like a large room from a Victorian mansion, due to smart use of a Murphy bed, beautiful furniture and drapes, custom granite countertops, etc. I furnished mine with select items that Brooklyn Heights neighbors threw out on those special days the city Sanitation Department designated for the collection of large items. We took bookcases to the carpentry shop for sanding and repainting, and fold-out sectionals to the upholstery shop. You wouldn't know the place was a dormitory until after 10:00pm.

Everyone railed against the "evils of NYC" but you certainly hit the correct tone of how many of the older ones with skyline views felt when they moved to Patterson, and a few who more recently moved to Warwick. It's beautiful...but...

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But they were soon transferred to Patterson where they would look out their window and see cows."