slimboyfat

Joined

• started 539 topics
• posted 17,647 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Jesus is distinguished from Jehovah, not from “the Father”, in scripture, including in Psalm 110.
  

  110 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
  Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
  2 Jehovah will [send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
  Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

  This verse is quoted many times throughout the New Testament and each and every time Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from Jehovah.

  Trinitarian slicing and dicing of scripture and the meaning of “God” is wild and shows no regard for what the text actually says.

  If I made the statement “Jesus is not Jehovah”, you’d probably say that is heresy.

  Yet when the Bible says that Jesus is not Jehovah, you say something like: “What you’ve got to understand is that ‘Jehovah’ here just means ‘the Father’, and the Trinity teaches that Jesus is not the Father, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement ‘Jesus is not Jehovah’ from a Trinitarian point of view.”

  Psalm 110 shows that Jesus, as Lord and Messiah, is distinguished from Jehovah God. Attempting to mix and redefine “God” and “Jehovah” for each verse in order to prop up a later Trinitarian dogma is desperate.
• 
  196

  would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

  by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a 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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Our common ancestors with other primates were hominoids.

  That’s the wrong way round. Primates didn’t evolve from hominoids, hominoids evolved from early primates.

  Hominoid is the narrower term, which is now used synonymously with “ape”.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

  Primate is the broader term which includes lemurs, monkeys, and other mammals, as well as apes.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Classification_of_living_primates

  
  
• 
  196

  would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

  by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a 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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  For clarity:

  People who use the word ape to describe humans and their ancestors - scientists

  People who say the term ape is “unhelpful” if used that way - Cofty
• 
  196

  would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

  by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a 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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  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.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
  
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a 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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.)

  https://youtu.be/oDOSOQLLO-U
  
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes I like Kurt Metzger and the Jimmy Dore shore 👍
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.