Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

Joseph the Dreamer

Recommended Posts

When I am captain of the dodge ball team, choosing up players, my first choice will be Joseph. Just look at his stats:

“From the time [Potiphar] appointed him over his house and in charge of all that was his, Jehovah kept blessing the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph, and Jehovah’s blessing came to be on all that he had in the house and in the field. He eventually left everything that was his in Joseph’s care, and he gave no thought to anything except the food he was eating.” (Genesis 39:5-6)

“So the chief officer of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners in the prison, and everything that they were doing there, he was the one having it done. The chief officer of the prison was looking after absolutely nothing that was in Joseph’s care, for Jehovah was with Joseph and Jehovah made whatever he did successful.” (Genesis 39:22-23) 

“Pharaoh further said to Joseph: “I am Pharaoh, but without your authorization, no man may do a single thing in all the land of Egypt.” ...The people began to cry to Pharaoh for bread. Then Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians: “Go to Joseph, and do whatever he tells you.” ...People of all the earth came to Egypt to buy from Joseph, because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth.” (Genesis 41:44, 55-57)

The bolded words say it all. He was a really good player. Were he on my team, he would soon be doing it all. We wouldn’t have to suffer being smashed with a ball and tagged out—that hurts!—we would voluntarily tag ourselves out and sit on the sidelines drinking Gatorade while he singlehandedly won the game.

He had dreams, too. Cool dreams. Not the type of dreams that I have, like how I  am sitting in the stands and suddenly remember that I have the next talk, only I have forgotten to wear my pants this day, and—come to think of it—the talk itself had slipped my mind so I haven’t prepared, but I might possibly be able to ad lib my way through—still, it would have been better had I remembered my pants...

No. Joseph’s dreams were about the rise and fall of peoples. At first, they got him into trouble, but later in life they got him out of trouble and landed him in some hotshot jobs, like being savior of the earth. (41:57)

He wasn’t full of himself, though. After interpreting Pharoah’s dream about how seven years of plenty will be followed by seven years of want, he says: “So now let Pharaoh look for a man who is discreet and wise and place him over the land of Egypt.” He doesn’t add—after he had just interpreted the dream that no one else could!—“Ahem...and I’m your man.” But it goes that way anyhow because he just interpreted the dream that no one else could. Isn’t there some verse somewhere about how it is better for other people to praise you than it is to jump the gun and do it yourself? 

“Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; Others, and not your own lips.” (Proverbs 27:2)

I like too how he always showed interest in others. Here he is in a prison hole greeting his mates with: “Why are your faces gloomy today?” (40:7) Turns out that they were gloomy because they’d each had a dream that they couldn’t figure out, and so Joseph did it for them. It ended up springing him from the hoosegow—so it couldn’t have been too much a waste of time for him to show fellow-feeling. 

Genesis 41:46 is relevant, too: “Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt” [to be granted his new role as administrator]. 30—same as was David when he began to rule and Jesus when he began his ministry.

Now, as it turns out, I was married on my thirtieth birthday. When elders sneak up the way they do trying to make it hot for me with my birthday cake, I always turn the table on them and send them away frustrated by pointing out that it is an anniversary cake. However, this fact of a significant phase of my life starting at 30 like with other worthies—it indicates that I am a hotshot. I am someone to be listened to and it distresses me that nobody is.

I throw in this personal revelation on account of a recent comment from Kos, upset that the GB should be “discouraging the ‘other sheep’ to ask the anointed about anything that conserns their anointing or if they could have any ‘new light.’”

 

To me, this says it all, not only for him, but for others in his spot. The longing to instruct and to be recognized as an instructor is palpable. And when they are NOT so recognized—since all you would have to do to be so recognized is to partake of the emblems, and there is no way to separate the crazies from the real anointed, and so I can’t imagine any real anointed making a fuss over it, since it is mostly a token of a future assignment—whoa! you should hear them carry on!

Well, me too! I want to be listened to, but nobody is. With all the blogging I have done for 15 years, I ought to be an in-house theologian by now. Not just me, but also @JW Insider. He should be in-house theologian for all his posts—and even (God help us) @James Thomas Rook Jr.. None of us are recognized. We all want to be. The organization isn’t enthralled with bloggers and maybe this post serves to remind why. Sure, I’m loyal now—but what if I park on the lawn and the elders tell me not to and I point out that I live in America so I can do anything I want and I decide to settle the score with them on my own blog—well, what then? If a brother goes bad at Bethel, they simply yank him and throw in another, but what will they do when I go bad? No wonder blogging doesn’t do it for them.

Now—whereas Kos and his contemporaries complain non-stop that their enlightenment is not recognized, do I? (much?) No. Does JWI? Not at all. Does JTR? Even though he lodges more complaints than most people take breaths, he does not complain about that! So I offer our excellent example to these frustrated anointed who want so badly for the flock to listen to them. You would think they would go out and find their own flock, but no! they want to filch sheep from the present Witness congregation.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The longing to instruct and to be recognized as an instructor is palpable.

Yes, it is.  It's ingrained in a priest of God, by Holy Spirit.

Mal 2:7 - “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth."

Isa 43:21 -  "The people I formed for myself will declare my praise.

1 Pet 2:9 - "But you are a chosen race,* a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

Heb 13:15 - "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praisethe fruit of lips that openly profess his name."

They "praise" God by speaking truth.  Yet truth, is recognized by the "fruit of the lips".  (Matt 7:15-20)

Jer 23:21,22 - "I did not send these prophets,
    yet they have run with their message;
I did not speak to them,
    yet they have prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my council,
    they would have proclaimed My words to My people
and would have turned them from their evil ways
    and from their evil deeds."

For those priests who do not act upon this assignment, who don't "make a fuss over it", they are not giving God due praise.  And, I don't mean as the GB expect them too, but as scripture dictates. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize all to well that I should NEVER be granted immortality, as one of the Anointed of God, and my chief value as a human is to set a bad example that should NOT be emulated.

Perhaps that is why all three of my children turned out so well ....they had my example of what they did not want to turn out like.

I do like to discuss philosophy, common sense, practical efficiencies, but consider myself a "theologian" ... nah.

The "dark side of the Force, Luke ..." is unfortunately, very strong within me.

If I had not been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses my whole adult life, I probably would have been rightfully executed many, many years ago, and Civilization would have been a lot safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

example to these frustrated anointed who want so badly for the flock to listen to them.

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!"

It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon?

For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points.

It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?

Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. 

Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests.

I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Americans are strange folks. I can almost understand why you so willingly accept the GB as being ok. Because you are all so off the rail you think it is natural. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting.

This view is based on "organization", not on scripture.  If perhaps we, as an individual disagree with a teaching, knowing God's Word proves that it is inaccurate, it is our duty to speak up for what is true.  But, perhaps you are thinking it is something to be brought up in the back room, out of ear shot of the congregation.  I am not saying we should be disrespectful as some ex JWs have proven themselves to be, in a "congregational" setting, but Jesus brought lies to the fore in front of everyone.  He wasn't selective ,or afraid to speak truth.   

We defend God's Word in Christ, even if it means we are labeled apostate.  Isn't that what JWs teach their members to do in the "world"?  Why would it stop once stepping into a "worldly" organization?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! ....Perhaps others here get similar requests.

$2.00 per word to quote me. Book sales have hit a lull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person who is chosen, whom I know and even respect, was often asked this question. It should be noted, that among imperfect men and women, God does the choosing, and such an honor of being chosen is like that of an invitation by means of God's hand. Granted some chosen ones out there, not all of them have the answers to everything because they have not gain said experience. In Solider of God's case, he was Biblical healthy, but compared to me, and others among his circle when he was alive, he was not savvy with in other aspects, especially history outside of Scripture, yet, indirectly correlates. Solider of God did not care about recognition at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Witness said:

This view is based on "organization", not on scripture.  If perhaps we, as an individual disagree with a teaching, knowing God's Word proves that it is inaccurate, it is our duty to speak up for what is true.  But, perhaps you are thinking it is something to be brought up in the back room, out of ear shot of the congregation.

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow.

Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.

I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Perhaps that is why all three of my children turned out so well ....they had my example of what they did not want to turn out like.

Tell those younguns to stop by my home for a visit. The stories they must have to tell.....

There are plenty of guys who, if they could say of their three children what you have said of yours, would have long-ago buried the hatchet and forgiven any wrongs.

You are a strange bird.

If it helps, tell them that, with considerable effort, I have come to see redeemable things in you—it has taken me years—and that one of the best tonics to counter your rants is to think of you as an ol pork chop. Tell them I no longer feel obliged to blast away at you with a double-barreled shot gun, and have found that a single barrel generally suffices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow.

If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the Lord,
And find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding  Prov 2:4-6

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  John 8:31

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.

 If the record of teachings is reliably wrong for 100 years, as WT’s leaders have proven, it is not the case of accidental “not being honest”, but pure dishonesty with an ulterior motive. My opinion, of course. (Matt 24:24; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Rev 16:13,14)

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?

 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.  Matt 10:34-39

~~~

"Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.  Col 2:20-22   (Isa 28:7-15)

~~~

"You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face."  2 Cor 11:19,20

~~~

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." Col 2:8

~~~

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."  2 Thess 2:9,10

Truth and understanding, especially during the last days, is not withheld from any of us, if we truly desire it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley A bit related, but regarding children, teach one, reach one, and in turn they do the same. Raising children to do good, the right way, as is, with informing and teaching them of dangers of this world, in turn, they can and will avoid said dangers. Even during this pandemic, the children of whom I was with for a long time even for those who are not by blood and of different races, they learn from example, and what they've learn, they are able to teach others, something of which of what I mention time and time again about solutions regarding children and some going into adulthood. The thing is, some children, especially within my culture, they represent of whom they originate from, i.e. if let's say Smith Baptiste, he represents his family, for whether his actions are good or bad, it not only falls on him, but his family line. Stuff like this is taken seriously, even as said young one progresses into adulthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley Interesting that you bring up the story about Joseph. On an other forum one wrote that WT organization has been bringing up this story in recent times and that person could not understand the point of that. But I believe Jehovah God is directing this to remind of this example from the past. Because maybe Joseph foreshadows a moder-day "Joseph" figure so that when he will be put in charge he would be welcomed by the brotherhood of Jehovah's witnesses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kosonen The story of Joseph has always been brought up by everyone, especially due to the fact the lessons to be learnt regarding this current day and age, mainly when it comes to being peaceable, as is with confronting immorality, that can cause men and women to stumble.

@TrueTomHarley Yes - We all can learn from Joseph, but not everyone takes said lessons to heart, we have examples on this forums already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

We all can learn from Joseph, but not everyone takes said lessons to heart, we have examples on this forums already

It is a light post that I wrote, but the part about Joseph taking interest in others even in the prison hole is a lesson for the ages. Same with how, even when he suffered serious reversals, Jehovah was always with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kosonen said:

Because maybe Joseph foreshadows a moder-day "Joseph" figure so that when he will be put in charge he would be welcomed by the brotherhood of Jehovah's witnesses.

In that case it should be an unjustly disfellowshipped brother to fit the comparation with Joseph, don't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 1:37 PM, JW Insider said:

That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?

Let me put your mind at ease, I, like you, know when to keep my mouth shut. There are doctrinal interpretations that I have considered incorrect, and some which are pointed out to me and I now consider incorrect, but who am I to start making waves about it? 607, 1914, peace and security, the generation....and so on, do not nullify, or undermine, the fundamental core of what it means to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and do not, actually should not,  undermine ones relationship with God. At least not for me. Heck, if I can read Ray's books and still be o.k, that says it all I think. 

If I discern something really WRONG then I will speak, but so far, this has not happened....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 5:51 PM, JW Insider said:

I did notice that you were quoted and referenced, albeit, anonymously in B.W.Schulz and R.M.de Vienne. Perhaps there is a future in collaborations.

This I don’t know about. I was referenced ‘anonymously?’ Well.....it’s a start. 

I followed RM on Twitter. After she died, BW became active on it. He expressly states that he steers clear of FB and IG for all the “idiots” on it, but he allows that Twitter is a nice distraction—it is like the background chatter in a coffee house. 

There was a time when I thought neither of them liked me very much, but I have since come to think it was just due to their being no-nonsense researchers who think that humor in research is an abomination, and note that I have no such aversion. He is steadily warming. In answer to my post about Woodstock and how it was held during a pandemic, he tweeted that he and his “antique wife” were pulling the leg of his nephew, giving the young man to believe that they had been there, apparently toking up with rest of them. He then threw in the unnecessary detail that he later fessed up and told the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kosonen said:

In that case it should be an unjustly disfellowshipped brother to fit the comparation with Joseph, don't you agree?

Regarding excommunication, to help people return to God yes, however, if the person dwells in Apostasy and or other, it is impossible to reach such a person.

 

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is a light post that I wrote, but the part about Joseph taking interest in others even in the prison hole is a lesson for the ages. Same with how, even when he suffered serious reversals, Jehovah was always with him.

Yes, God knows who is for him and who is not. The common man is capable of somehow knowing who is on God's side, but that is where the they are at a lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @JW Insider Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.

Quote @JW Insider  We have quite simply used a false definition of "generation." This is not honest. It brings shame and reproach on Jehovah's name and on the organization and brotherhood that we love. It is clearly a stretching of the definition beyond what is legitimately possible, and is apparently done so out of presumptuousness and haughtiness, which is always easier than humbly admitting that we just don't know. It is also based on a feeling that rank-and-file Witnesses can't be trusted to keep urgently busy and alert unless someone is reminding them of how close the end might be. *

* (see 1975 below ) 

If, this was clearly a stretching of the definition beyond what is legitimately possible, and if it was done out of presumptuousness and haughtiness, then it WAS DISHONEST. 

So I hope you have "stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem" 

It's nice that you don't judge anything as 'purposefully dishonest' but there must come a time when truth has to be told. 

As for this is bit, I quote  : -

It is also based on a feeling that rank-and-file Witnesses can't be trusted to keep urgently busy and alert unless someone is reminding them of how close the end might be.

Reminder of the 1975 fiasco then. And, in the March 15, 1980 Watchtower the Society said its claims about 1975 were regretted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kosonen said:

On an other forum one wrote that WT organization has been bringing up this story in recent times and that person could not understand the point of that.

Well its been part of the weekly Bible reading for May. We started over again in January (Genesis) All you have to do is look at the midweek workbook....no mystery there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well its been part of the weekly Bible reading for May. We started over again in January (Genesis) All you have to do is look at the midweek workbook....no mystery there. 

Had my former prophesy been heeded that the end would come prior to January because we had reached the end of our current Bible reading schedule and it was too inconvenient to make everyone start again at Genesis, we wouldn’t be in this pickle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Had my former prophesy been heeded that the end would come prior to January because we had reached the end of our current Bible reading schedule and it was too inconvenient to make everyone start again at Genesis, we wouldn’t be in this pickle.

Yes. But reading it daily is like training the muscle. Day and night we must - Joshua 1:8. If we can eat everyday, we can read everyday, that is how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anna said:

Well its been part of the weekly Bible reading for May. We started over again in January (Genesis) All you have to do is look at the midweek workbook....no mystery there. 

At the last year summer conventon Kenneth Cook spoke about Joseph and mentioned that some have been unjustly treated in the congregation and that Joseph is an example for those. 

Then I thought that Jehovah prepares for the entrance of a modern-day Joseph figure to the Jehovah's witnesses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kosonen Difficult to say if somehow everyone is deemed an enemy, and said individual is quickly judged by the common man, even if mere mistake is present with a correction to follow it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

  • Topics

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Claud's Lst  »  misette

      Bonjour Misette comment ça va. Merci beaucoup pour ton travail que tu as fait et continue de faire. 
      Nous avons pas reçu le joyau pour cette semaine, dis nous si il y a un problème. 
      Merci que Jéhovah continue de te benir. 
      · 2 replies
    • Isabella

      Good ideas 
       

      · 0 replies
    • 4Jah2me  »  Srecko Sostar

      Hi Srecko. I hope you can see this photo. This is my daily driving car. It is outside a Dance Studio where  I have danced and hope to go dancing again, John 

      · 2 replies
    • Tennyson  »  Queen Esther

      Hello my sister, i have not head from you long sice. I hope you are wel. Hope to hear from you soon. Agape.
      · 0 replies
    • Doryseeker  »  4Jah2me

      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
       
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,826
    • Total Posts
      122,591
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,660
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    IPS Temp Admin
    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.