In current nomenclature humans are a kind of ape, as are various of their ancestors such as Homo erectus. So I don’t see a problem with saying that humans evolved from apes from an evolutionary perspective. Humans (a kind ape) evolved from Homo erectus (another kind of ape). It’s been scientific practice to use “Ape” as the umbrella term since the 1960s.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
196
would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA ina good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
-
-
-
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 inok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
-
-
slimboyfat
I think there is a good explanation for Heb 1.10 that actually enhances the case the for the divine name in the NT and the distinction between Jehovah and Jesus, or YHWH and kyrios in the original.
Because, as you mention, it is the Greek version, not the Hebrew that is quoted here. The Hebrew doesn’t have Lord in verse 26, but the Greek version does. An English translation of the entire Psalm can be read here:
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/PSA101.htm#FN2
The question is what did the Greek of this Psalm say before the divine name was removed? The Greek version of this Psalm can be read as a Messianic Psalm, and the Lord in verse 26 is the Lord Messiah rather than YHWH. This is indicated in verse 24 where is says “he answered him”. Who answered who? This is apparently YHWH and Jesus speaking to each other.
This is similar to Psalm 110 where David says, “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand” and quoted so many times in the New Testament, applying the “Lord” to Jesus as distinct from YHWH in the same verse.
This raises a question I never see Trinitarians answer. How can they say Jesus and Jehovah are elided in the New Testament when the most popular OT quotation in the entire NT makes the clear distinction between YHWH and the messianic Lord.
The entire point of quoting Psalm 110.1 throughout the NT is to distinguish YHWH from Jesus. Although it’s more difficult to see, because there’s a difference between the Hebrew and Greek versions in Psalm 101/2, the same thing is going on there as the messianic “Lord” is distinguished from YHWH in the original Greek version.
So the NWT probably got it right, the Greek version of the Psalm probably did have “Lord” rather than YHWH in this particular quotation.
As for 1 Peter 2.3 I think they could have used Jehovah there because it could as easily be a reference to Jehovah God rather than Jesus.
Rom 10.13 applies to God because he is the one who resurrected Jesus in the previous verses.
The Gospel scriptures applying Isaiah to the coming of Jesus makes sense because Jesus comes in the name of Jehovah as his representative.
-
196
would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA ina good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
-
-
slimboyfat
Cofty are you still living out that ironic position, which I take to be an art form that you have distinctively perfected, of insisting that others need to read books in order to know what they are talking about, meanwhile condemning “Marxist postmodernists”, apparently not realising that Marxism and postmodernism are at odds with one another, and refusing to read an actual Marxist or postmodernist book yourself to find out where you got confused between the two.
Foucault was not a Marxist. A common critique of Foucault from a Marxist perspective is that his philosophy leads to inertia rather than class struggle, and therefore conservatism.
Jordan Peterson has apparently never read a book by a postmodernist or a Marxist either. He said he had a brief look at the Communist Manifesto in preparing for the “debate” but didn’t even finish that. (It’s a very short book, more like a pamphlet.)
-
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 ini see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
-
-
slimboyfat
I get your point, that there is a tension between the competing claims that the NT was accurately preserved on the one hand, and that the divine name has been removed on the other. That makes a certain amount of sense and is a viable criticism from a faith perspective. It is a well known problem that JWs have never directly addressed in the Watchtower.
Purely as a matter history, however, theological considerations don’t detract from the historical reasons for thinking that the original NT contained the divine name. The scholars who argue that the original NT contained the divine name have various faith backgrounds that don’t seem to impinge on the matter one way or another. George Howard, Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch and others argue for the divine name in the divine name in the original NT on historical rather than religious grounds. They would probably agree that the text has been corrupted in various ways because they are not committed to upholding the overall integrity of the NT text.
I do think there is also a religious defence JWs could make, although they do not do so explicitly. They could argue that in general the NT text was preserved while the divine name in particular was removed, perhaps partly under the influence of Satan. But that Jehovah has played a hand in restoring the divine name in the last days by preserving crucial LXX fragments with his name and by bring in these to the attention of his named people Jehovah's Witnesses, who restored the divine name to the NT.
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
Jimmy Dore Show, not shore. Doh!
If you ever go on a long boat trip remember to take a bar of soap with you, that way if you’re shipwrecked you can always wash ashore. ⛴️ 🏝️
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
Yes I like Kurt Metzger and the Jimmy Dore shore 👍
-
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 ini see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
-
-
slimboyfat
All the copies of the Septuagint from the third century CE and later use Lord instead of the divine name, despite the fact that the early Septuagint did use the divine name. To say that the same thing probably happened in the New Testament, and Lord replaced the divine name, over the same period of time, as it was copied by the same people who copied the Septuagint isn’t a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a reasonable inference from the know facts, and one that a number of scholarly experts agree with.
-
196
would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA ina good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
-
-
slimboyfat
The things I know are vastly outnumbered by the things I don’t know, and many of the things I think I know I am likely wrong about too.
Considering the vast number of things people disagree about, just statistically speaking, people generally must be far more often wrong than right. Being wrong therefore is the normal state of affairs for humans. If any of us happen to be right about some particular issue it’s probably a rare event plus near impossible to identify with certainty, since we always tend to think we are right. If we didn’t think we were right we would change our mind.
Given that I am probably wrong in most of the things I think about the world, and have ever thought about the world, it seems a bit futile to pick out one thing that I think I’m right about now and was wrong about in the past.
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
Yup he’s a nasty piece of work alright, and always has been. I sometimes wonder if he realises what a nasty person he is and revels in it, or if he genuinely thinks he’s a good guy. It’s hard to step inside the mind of someone who behaves as he does to work out what is going on. He seems to be completely impervious to the most obvious and straightforward criticism: such as it’s wrong to steal someone else’s copyrighted book, or to out people on Facebook resulting in them being shunned by their family, or to attempt to coerce your spouse to accept infidelity. Whatever he does he seems to have some sort of justification that black is really white. What’s strange is that it comes so effortlessly to him, as if he really does believe it.
I’ve heard it said that “nobody is the villain of their own story” which I guess is an accurate assessment of how humans operate psychologically. Nevertheless some people must have minds working overdrive to avoid seeing Darth Vader staring back at them in the mirror.
-
3
Memorial Attendances 2020 to 2023
by slimboyfat infollowing from the convention attendance thread i looked back on my notes to see the memorial attendances over the pandemic.
this is what i found.
i don’t have any pre-pandemic attendances but i’d estimate them around 80 to 90 or so in recent years.
-
-
slimboyfat
Following from the convention attendance thread I looked back on my notes to see the memorial attendances over the pandemic. This is what I found. I don’t have any pre-pandemic attendances but I’d estimate them around 80 to 90 or so in recent years.
First fully Zoom memorial in 2020 early in the lockdown had 72 in attendance
The second fully Zoom memorial in 2021 had 70 in attendance
First hybrid Zoom/KH memorial in 2022 had 51 in the KH and 38 on Zoom - 89 in total
Second hydride Zoom/KH memorial in 2023 had 89 in the KH and 17 on Zoom - 106 in total
Make of that what you will.