Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
4 hours ago, indagator said:

I hope this helps.

Quite a technical slant to this for me, nevertheless very useful.

My interest (seemingly confirmed) is around the fact that vowel pointing as such was/is not required to read  Biblical Hebrew.

For me this has a relevance to the OP in that the use of the divine name, held by some to be unpronounceable due to lack of vowels, would seem to not be limited at all by that poposition.

From a purely unacademic standpoint, the lack of a scripturally recorded controversy over the pronunciation and use of God's name by Jesus and his immediate disciples appears to argue strongly for the fact that they used it with relative impunity. There is no scripturally recorded censure for their use of the name in the face of other petty criticisms of their conduct (albeit major violations of Pharisaic and scribal tradition). However there is every indication that Jesus did use it extensively. Added of course is the fact that there would be no mystery at all to Jesus of the fact that God's name existed, should be used, and of course had a correct pronunciation.This would seem to indicate that a complete prohibition on speaking it at all post dates this period.

Edit: Just noticed and upvoted your separate posting on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.5k
  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming. A quick word on

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material)

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion.

Posted Images

  • Member
12 hours ago, indagator said:

Great article!

I agree completely with the author of the article. At first it never occurred to me that Hebrew students should not to learn these rules, and I had often heard that the Masoretes were so superstitiously careful about the copying of texts that not a letter would be lost from text to text due to letter counting and the care given to every 'jot and tittle.' So they seemed sacrosanct.

One point struck me as incomplete:

  • 6) Once again, the Tiberian pointing in the MT is only one of three pointing systems (which indicates that there was disagreement over what was the "correct" pronunciation). Just because it happened to win broad acceptance does not mean that it should be uncritically accepted as authoritative.[21]

There were disagreements about pronunciation, but without more information about the interactions between the proponents of the three pointing systems, you could hardly say that the existence of three shows there were disagreements. You can have three systems that all look different but are just three different ways to say the same thing. 

And for various historical reasons, the three pointing systems could have all naturally evolved at about the same time, semi-independently, not strictly because there was disagreement over the correct pronunciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

For me this has a relevance to the OP in that the use of the divine name, held by some to be unpronounceable due to lack of vowels, would seem to not be limited at all by that proposition.

True. Although I never heard anyone specifically argue that the divine name would have been unpronounceable due to lack of written vowels. Most people learn to pronounce a language almost perfectly before they learn to read and spell most of the words in that language. Therefore pronunciation is possible not only without vowels, but even without consonants.

I think we are dealing with an argument that a specific word, the Divine Name, might have become unpronounceable through edict and superstitious practice. When a name is made holy, to some this would mean it is not touched. Just as holy ground was not to be touched. Just as a mundane use or function of the body would make Jewish individuals unsanctified to be near the presence of holiness. This idea is repeated often:

  • (Exodus 19:21-23) . . .Jehovah now said to Moses: “Go down and warn the people not to try to force their way through to look at Jehovah, or many of them will perish. 22 And let the priests who regularly come near to Jehovah sanctify themselves, so that Jehovah may not strike them.” 23 Moses then said to Jehovah: “The people are not able to come up to Mount Siʹnai because you already warned us, saying, ‘Set boundaries around the mountain, and make it sacred.’”

The following was still the proper practice of the Jewish rituals even in Jesus' day:

  • (Leviticus 22:2, 3) 2 “Tell Aaron and his sons that they should be careful how they handle the holy things of the Israelites and not profane my holy name regarding the things they are sanctifying to me. I am Jehovah. 3 Say to them, ‘Throughout your generations, any of your offspring who, while he is unclean, comes near to the holy things that the Israelites sanctify to Jehovah, that person will be cut off from before me. . . .

If this general idea were ever combined with the idea that the Name YHWH was a holy thing, not to be profaned, then it could be understood why such a superstition arose.

  • (Exodus 20:7) 7 “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way.

So, I'd think that, as you already know,  the timing of this superstition and practice would still be very important to the claim that a lack of controversy argues that Jesus used the name. Your argument could end up with "circular" overtones, in some circles:

7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

From a purely unacademic standpoint, the lack of a scripturally recorded controversy over the pronunciation and use of God's name by Jesus and his immediate disciples appears to argue strongly for the fact that they used it with relative impunity. There is no scripturally recorded censure for their use of the name in the face of other petty criticisms of their conduct (albeit major violations of Pharisaic and scribal tradition). However there is every indication that Jesus did use it extensively.

Of course, you already deal with the idea that the complete prohibition must post date this period of Jesus' ministry. I am also counting on the fact that it did. But it would be good to lay out the evidence that this is true, else the argument doesn't work very well.

7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Added of course is the fact that there would be no mystery at all to Jesus of the fact that God's name existed, should be used, and of course had a correct pronunciation.This would seem to indicate that a complete prohibition on speaking it at all post dates this period.

What complicates the question even more is the fact that while Masoretic vowel pointing didn't really come into existence until perhaps 600 CE, it wasn't necessarily accurate for a period that was half-a-millennium prior to that. We hardly pronounce English the same as Shakespeare would have in any English-speaking country, and the wide variations exist in spite of many written rules about English since 1600, inter-generationally connected populations, and a lot of scribes and a high percentage of literate people in these countries. Hebrew, after every Jewish diaspora, had strikes against stable pronunciation at every turn. (As the Shibboleth incident points out, there were striking pronunciation differences between at least a couple of Israel's tribes just a few short years after they settled the land together?!?!?!)

But there was a kind of vowel pointing that had already been in use prior to the earliest of any extant Hebrew manuscript (DSS), and that's the vowel pointing that was done with added consonants (consonants reused to represent vowels). And those dual-use consonants were primarily Y,H,W. Another area of inconsistency that had already developed prior to any of our extant manuscripts is the final H sound. Therefore, it looks like one could reasonably argue that if one had to recreate a lost or unknown pronunciation, that one of the most ambiguous of such words in the entire Hebrew would be YHW-H.

Still there is hope. Gertoux, for example, deals directly with the fact that these could all represent vowels, not consonants. He, and others, also deal with the earliest possible history of comments about the Name after the NT Bible manuscripts themselves. And, although I never heard anyone make a point of it, we know that several priests and even Pharisees became believers in the first century. If anyone would know how the name was pronounced, it would have been people from this group, even if there already was a superstition about pronunciation by the average Joseph on the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

unpronounceable due to lack of vowels

Probably better for me to have said "unpronounceable correctly". I have met several that assert the lack of knowing the correct vowels to be a reason for this, particularly clergymen and more studious evangelical supporters. (united by some sort of "deity of Christ" persuasion).

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But it would be good to lay out the evidence that this is true

Evidence for the timing of the prohibition is of interest I agree, and regarding the use of vowel pointing, hence my question to which @indagator replied.

However, the scriptural notion that Jesus would have been familiar with the appropriate pronunciation and use of His Father's name, and accustomed to using it accordingly, doesn't actually require evidence other than the statement made by the inspired apostle at John 1:19: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him"
and his recording of the report made by Jesus in prayer at John 17:26 : "I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

This for me is an even more fundamental factor than the secondary support provided by the absence of a scriptural record of controversy over the matter. I suppose the basic premise for me is that 'Jesus did use the Divine name correctly in the 1st Century, and no one fussed over the matter.'

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it could be understood why such a superstition arose.

Yes I agree with this. Whilst the obscuring and removal of God'name from His own word smacks of Satanic intrigue and conspiracy, I can quite easily accept that some involved in this would have become so quite innocently and even with good motive. After all, "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness" 2Cor.11:14-15. Paul's sympathy for such ones was expressed at Rom.10:1: "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
43 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Probably better for me to have said "unpronounceable correctly". I have met several that assert the lack of knowing the correct vowels to be a reason for this

And in this particular case there could even have been a lack of knowing the correct consonants. Although this problem is mostly solvable, but not easily, and not with 100% confidence. 

Of course, this has nothing to do with the difference in J, or Y, or I when used as the initial consonant, nor anything to do with the difference between W or V. I would consider initial I,J,Y to be completely equivalent, and W and V to be completely equivalent, too. Jahve, Jahweh, Yahwe, Yahveh, Yahweh are all exactly the same word for purposes of this discussion (imo), just as Yehowah and Jehovah would be exactly the same word.

In truth, there would have been correct and proper differences in the pronunciations of vowels, too, even among Hebrew speakers in the first century. For example, a Galilean's accent (NWT fn) would give him away in Jerusalem.

  • (Matthew 26:73) 73 After a little while, those standing around came up and said to Peter: “Certainly you are also one of them, for in fact, your [ACCENT] dialect gives you away.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Gone Away said:

However, the scriptural notion that Jesus would have been familiar with the appropriate pronunciation and use of His Father's name, and accustomed to using it accordingly, doesn't actually require evidence other than the statement made by the inspired apostle at John 1:19: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him"
and his recording of the report made by Jesus in prayer at John 17:26 : "I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

I agree that John 17:26 must have been one of the literal ways in which John 1:19 was fulfilled. With the Hebrew Scriptures as the entire foundation upon which Jewish faith should have come to include faith in Jesus Christ, there were constant references to OT fulfillments that were known to have contained the Divine Name. Hundreds of references to the OT are found in the NT and it would have still been common knowledge that these included direct references to the Divine Name, even for those who would not themselves pronounce it (assuming that kyrios and theos, etc., were already contained in some of the first century manuscripts of the LXX from which Jesus may have read.) 

But we can't forget that one of the arguments some scholars will throw back at us is the idea that goes in reverse of the above: that John 17:26 was fulfilled by John 1:19. In other words, that the term "your name" with reference to God was just another way to reference God. (So that Jesus made God's name known by making God known.) We already use the argument ourselves that "name" can mean the person, or the person's reputation, or the person's representation, when we come across verses like: 

  • (John 17:6-12) 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. . . . 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me. . . . Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me. . .
  • (John 16:23, 24) . . .Most truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for a single thing in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.
  • (Matthew 28:19) . . .Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and [in the name] of the Son and [in the name] of the holy spirit,

  • (Acts 3:15, 16) . . .the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. 16 And through his name, and by our faith in his name, this man whom you see and know has been made strong.. . .

We don't have faith in the pronunciation of the consonants and vowels of the name "J-E-S-U-S" but we have faith in the person, the representation, and the reputation of Jesus. With reference to God, this argument could be doubled as God himself was already known as "The NAME" (Ha-Shem) even prior to the first century. See a possible Biblical example in Lev 24:11.

  • (Leviticus 24:11) The son of the Israelite woman began to abuse the Name and to curse it.

And of course, this idea might have a bearing on our understanding of the following:

  • (Acts 4:6-18) . . ., 7 and they stood them in their midst and began to inquire: “By what power or in whose name did YOU do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with holy spirit, said to them: “ . . .10  in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, . . . whom God raised up from the dead, by this one [footnote shows that the Greek actually says "by this name"] does this man stand here sound in front of YOU. 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” . . . 17 Nevertheless, in order that it may not be spread abroad further among the people, let us tell them with threats not to speak anymore upon the basis of this name to any man at all.” 18 With that they called them and charged them, nowhere to make any utterance or to teach upon the basis of the name of Jesus.
  • (Acts 8:14-17) . . .they dispatched Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet fallen upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they went laying their hands upon them, and they began to receive holy spirit.
  • (Acts 9:14-21) 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” [Jesus] 15 But the Lord [Jesus] said to him: “Be on your way, because this man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.” [Jesus] 17 So An·a·niʹas went off and entered into the house, and he laid his hands upon him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord, the Jesus that appeared to you on the road over which you were coming, has sent me forth, in order that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” . . . 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God. 21 But all those hearing him gave way to astonishment and would say: “Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this name, and that had come here for this very purpose. . .

And of course:

  • (Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.
  • (Philippians 2:9-11) . . .For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, [Greek just says "the name above every name"] 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. . .
  • (2 Thessalonians 1:12) 12 in order that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in YOU, . . .
  • (Hebrews 1:4) . . .So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
  • (Revelation 2:17) . . .and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’
  • (Revelation 3:12) “‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

There are plenty of other and better examples showing that "name" clearly means "reputation" (Revelation 3:1, etc) but I wanted to include especially those that would become difficult to explain about "the name of Jesus" if it were literally the term "Jesus" (or a variation) that was meant. To be consistent, then, some of the references to the "name of Jehovah" in both OT and NT cannot simply mean the term "Jehovah" or another variation of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

GA and JWI: I'm glad you found that online SBL article helpful. JWI, you are certainly correct that language is primarily a spoken phenomenon and whatever writing system is applied to try and capture a given language, it (1) will have limitations and (2) can become problematic as the real, spoken, language continues to evolve.

JWI said "I think we are dealing with an argument that a specific word, the Divine Name, might have become unpronounceable through edict and superstitious practice." This is true in the long run, but as Shaw brings out, both the passage in Philo's Embassy to Gaius and the one in Josephus' War show that people of Jesus' day had easy access to the pronunciation of the divine name, so at that time its pronunciation was known and recognized.

GA, thanks for noting my separate posting. If one is concerned with the form of the name that Jesus and the apostles used, Shaw's book is the best thing available. As JWI has noted in substance, one of the limitations of the WTS on this issue is their heavy focus on Hebrew (in JWI's words, their failure to understand that the Hebrew tetragrammatons in LXX manuscripts show a non-pronunciation of the name by the manuscripts' producers, the opposite of what the organization officially concludes). In spirit this is the same deficiency found in the works of Furuli and Gertoux who continue to emphasize Hebrew. One needs to move beyond that and look at the evidence in Aramaic, the native language of Jesus and the apostles, as it is presented in Greek, the very thing we see so often in the pages of the New Testament itself: Mt 5:22, 27:46; Mk 5:41, 7.34, 11:9, 14:36; John 20:16; Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6.

As I stated in my recent OP, "the masses, among whom Jesus worked and from whom came the apostles and other disciples of him, freely used the name as Yaho in Aramaic. This then shows up as Iao in the written Greek sources," and "this form of the divine name [Ιαω], vocalized as "Ya-ho," was the active pronunciation of the divine name when Jesus and the apostles lived. There is considerable evidence for this."

Again, if one really wants to understand the situation regarding the divine name as it was in Jesus' day, see here:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/58370-the-latest-work-on-the-divine-name/

Whether JWs realize it or not, Shaw's concluding statement to his chapter 9 actually supports their use of "Jehovah" for God's name today, not because it somehow closely represents how the Hebrew name was really pronounced, say, in Isaiah’s day, but because a pronunciation of the name had come about that was related to its original one, but was different, an "unofficial" or possibly "inaccurate" one. Consider his words:

"In sum, two things are evident: the God of the ancient Israelites had his more educated worshipers who during and after the [R]estoration felt that not verbalizing his name was a way to honor him. Eventually their view prevailed when it comes to the issue of the divine name in the biblical text and in Judaism in general. However, the same God also had another group, very likely less educated and unsophisticated, who felt the opposite and must have so freely expressed this, in the eyes of some, "unofficial" or perhaps "improper," form of the name—Ιαω—that the composers of the world's first Bible dictionaries could use it regularly to expound the meaning of biblical characters' names because their copies of the LXX contained it. Furthermore, pagan writers could use this name expecting their far-flung audience to understand what they were talking about. Obviously this implies there were plenty of everyday Jews still using Ιαω."

BTW, JWI, I loved your "quick word" comment posted at 5:22 AM last Friday on this thread. That's the spirit. Of course, when dealing with others, it needs to be tempered with the caution expressed at Luke 17:1-2, but for those who can handle it, truth needs to be pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus made God's name known by making God known.

Quite true. In fact, that is the most common response I have received from clergymen I have met in ministry when referencing any of the scriptures that speak of Jesus making God's name known.

Another common response it that the name of God refers to the authority of the Creator, in the sense implied by John 17:24 and many other scriptures (as you point out).

I have found theses views easily developed however by mentioning that whilst a law officer's warrant card may well be a sign of authorisation and authority, if it does not include a name to identify the individual, and also a signature of authorisation from one suitably qualified, then it carries little weight.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To be consistent, then, some of the references to the "name of Jehovah" in both OT and NT cannot simply mean the term "Jehovah" or another variation of it.

Absolutely. And, as the sons of Sceva learned, similar reasoning could be applied to the name of Jesus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, tromboneck said:

I call it good ol' fashioned "false humility"

For some indeed, but for all, it becomes "Self righteousness". That is, making up your own rules and keeping them diligently as a subtitute for doing what Jehovah requires. Rom.10:3: "For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Member
On 7/17/2018 at 1:15 AM, JW Insider said:

I never heard anyone specifically argue that the divine name would have been unpronounceable due to lack of written vowels.

Interesting. Seems to be a view amongst some I have met, particularly evangelicals, but also a number of clergymen from a variety of denominations. Granted, these encounters were all in England, but the individuals were from quite a variety of nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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