Posts by Disillusioned JW

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Riley, don't the Jews of Judaism ignore the plurality of Elohim (God) in the Hebrew Scriptures (old testament), except in the sense of being the "plural of majesty"? They utterly reject the idea of God consisting of more than one person (and thus they totally reject the trinity doctrine) - and their culture is the one which wrote the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) and which has been teaching for over 3000 years obedience to its laws. Surely they know what kind of God their OT reveals God to be. The Shema, which Jews of Judaism recite, is "the Lord, our God, is one" and the Bible says "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh". However, the NT in at least one verse does equate the Lord Jesus with the Lord Yahweh.

The gospel of Matthew (at 6:9) says that Jesus taught his apostles to pray "Our Father who/which is in heaven" ("in the heavens"). [Granted, in Luke 11:2 it does not say "in heaven" or "in the heavens".] Do you think Jesus, whom the gospel said was on Earth at the time, was teaching his apostles to pray to Jesus or to a trinity? To me, the Jesus of the Bible was teaching his apostles to pray to Yahweh/Jehovah and with the understanding that Yahweh/Jehovah is their Father.

Though some verses in the NT possibly portray the God of the OT as consisting of more than one person, the OT repeatedly and numerously portrays its God as consisting solely of one person (except maybe in just a few verses). The WT's view of the Heavenly father being Jehovah (though of course my atheistic view is that there is no god) is thus well grounded upon the OT Bible and upon numerous verses of the NT Bible.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

I mostly used CompuServe to browse the internet and to read information which was in their database.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: There is a major editing error in what I posted to Diogenesister. Where I said "... I was allowed to create an account with them.It wasn't easy for me to find that company" I meant to say the following. "I was allowed to create an account with them. It wasn't easy for me to find that company."

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding CompuServe see https://www.compuserve.com/home/about.jsp and https://www.compuserve.com/ . Back in the 1990s I had AOL (it is still in business) and later CompuServe for a period of time. I really liked CompuServe except for its pricing. Later I switched to a straight internet only (one without a database service) dial up company. A few years ago I bought a like-new condition soft brief case with the CompuServe brand name on it. I carry my Windows 10 laptop in it, when I bring my laptop to my place of work to use WiFi (such as to download drivers and Windows 10 Updates onto it).

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro I have a 56 Kbps modem but on my phone line it never connects at that speed. The highest speed it connects at on my phone line to my ISP is at 46.6 Kbps, hence I said my connection is at 46 Kbps on my dial-up modem. But yes, the modem itself is rated at 56 Kbps.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Diogenesister, Dial UP works OK for me most of the time provided the web pages I am accessing are mostly text, without a lot of Javascript and provided they are coded in a way which is compatible with older versions of web page coding standards. The ISP I am using is located in the USA and is call DialUp4Less (see https://www.dialup4less.com/ ). Before I opened an account with them, the company representative asked me several questions on the phone to make sure I realized the kind of ISP I was signing up for. After I told the representative that I have a circa year 2002 computer running Windows 2000 (later I switched to somewhat newer computer running XP) and that I primarily want to read articles (and not watch videos at home) and that I often have Javascript turned off and that I have been using Dial Up since the 1990s, I was allowed to create an account with them.It wasn't easy for me to find that company. I also found another dial up company, one which is by the company which bought out AOL (and thus Netscape) a very long time ago, as well as the Computerserve brand name and Netscape's (and/or AOL's?) dial up internet ISP, but I didn't like the terms of its service agreement (see https://isp.netscape.com/ and https://www.aol.com/ ). The last time I checked (a few years ago) AOL's (America Online's) dial up internet service was still used in those rural areas of the USA which do not have good access to wireless internet service.

The browser edition I am using at home on my Windows XP computer is Firefox ESP 52.9.0 (32-bit), since it is most up to date browser which can run on a Windows XP computer system.

One of these days I hope to switch to a Linux based computer system. I first tried installing Linux way back in the year 2000, but I never managed to get a version of Linux to run completely well on any computer of mine (at best the problem was with video when running software which displayed text, such as word processors); many times the install process would freeze up well before getting near to being fully installed.

When I need a better internet experience, than what I have at home, I use the computers in the break room at work (including after work) and the computers in the local public library. I now have a laptop with Windows 10 (I installed the 2021 Edition Update last Thursday onto it) and I hope to get modem drivers installed onto it so I can use a current browser edition (on the better computer) at home using my dial up connection. I already bought a serial to USB adapter for it and properly installed the drivers for it onto the laptop. Eventually I will get broadband internet (perhaps with 'cable' TV and digital phone) at my home, or by getting a smartphone with a Wi-Fi hot spot, or by getting a tablet computer with cell phone data capability and a Wi-Fi hot spot. But that will only be after I find a plan which is cheap enough for my liking.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro in your case of you I discovered this old topic thread and another because I wanted to understand you better, due to a perceived dispute. But I posted on very old topic threads by others even months before I started posting on your two very old topic threads. Furthermore I chose your two topic threads because I found them interesting and wanted to express my views about the topics.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, I have revived several topic threads (not just ones started by you) which are more than 10 years old - and I will likely do so again and again. I see nothing inappropriate with that. You seem irritated by me reviving old topic threads. If that is annoying to you, why is that the case?

The main reason why I posted to old topic threads is because apparently Simon the moderator months ago put a restriction on my account which prevents me from creating new topic threads. [I thus now can only make posts to already existing topic threads; I no longer can create new topic threads. As a result, if I wish to post a comment I have to find an already existing topic thread, even if very very old, in which to post my comment. I now have no other choice when posting to this web site.] He apparently did that because he incorrectly thought I was intentionally spamming (instead of unintentionally spamming), because a number of times I created multiple topic threads with essentially the same content.

But the reason why I created multiple topic threads with essentially the same information was due to technical difficulties. Those specific posts were delayed in posting to such an extent that I thought they hadn't been fully received by Simon's computer system due to problems with my 46 Kbps dial-up modem based internet connection (which sometimes disconnects me from the internet while attempting an upload) and outdated computer system (and I also thought that perhaps some wording or punctuation in the title of my posts' topic thread created a technical glitch). As a result I made repeated attempts to upload them. Many hours later they posted, resulting in Simon having to delete the duplicates.

20

NWT Revisions

by Jeffro in

there is mention on a wikipedia article that there was a 2006 revision of the nwt.

is this true?

what differences are there?

Disillusioned JW

Hi Sea Breeze that is a good example you gave from Philippians which supports the point I made, but I think you meant 2:9 instead of 1:9. By the way, I also notice that in the 1984 NWT the brackets are in Philippians 2:9, but in that verse the brackets were not in any prior edition of the NWT. I'm guessing that the WT had added them to the 1984 revision of that verse due to criticisms by evangelicals and/or non-JW scholars of the Bible.

Your drawing attention to Philippians 2:9 reminds of something I have noticed about the NT which is very puzzling to me. The name Jesus (Iesous in Greek; Yeshua in Hebrew) was a very common Jewish name during the time that Jesus Christ lived on Earth (if he ever was a historical person) and is simply a variation of the name Yoshua/Joshua (which in turn is a contracted form of the name Yehoshua), which was also a very common Jewish name. It is thus very puzzling to me that the NT makes a big deal about that name Jesus being special when applied to Christ, when the one called Christ (if he ever existed) was by no means the first human to have that name. [For other examples of the NT making a big deal about the name Jesus, see Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31-33.]

During most of my active time as a JW I didn't know that the name Jesus was very common in the early 1 century CE, and probably most Christians today also don't realize it was very common. Luke 3:29 even lists a person named Jesus as an ancestor of Jesus Christ! For some documentation of that see the 1984 NWT and the Bible translated by Goodspeed and Smith (though the name Joshua or Jose is used in many other Bible translations). Even the criminal Barabbas (the one who the NT says Pilate released instead of Jesus Christ), according to some NT manuscripts of Matthew 27:16–17 (see the NRSV, the translators' note in the RSV, TNIV, REB, and the 1991 NAB) was named Jesus Barabbas (meaning Jesus son of the father)! The crowds thus were asked which Jesus they wanted to be released, namely "Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah" (NRSV)!

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas says the following. "These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[12][13] The Church Father Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.[14] He however does not account for the high priest Biblical Greek: Ἰάσων, romanized: Iásōn from 2 Maccabees 4:13, whose name seems to transliterate the same Aramaic name into Greek, as well as other bearers of the name Jesus mentioned by Josephus.[10] It is however also possible that later scribes, when copying the passage, removed the name "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" to avoid dishonor to the name of Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.[15] ]

Furthermore, the name Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua honors the name Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH since it literally means "Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH saves" or "Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH is salvation", though some sources (incorrectly in my view) say it means "salvation" or "savior". For example, note that https://aleteia.org/2019/05/13/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-name-jesus/ says the following.

'The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the Hebrew name Jeshua—or Joshua, or Jehoshua—means “Jehovah is salvation.” The Greeks transliterated that as Iesous, which in turn gave us the Latin form, Jesus.

“Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel,” the Catholic Encyclopedia notes. “It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiasticus, of one of Christ’s ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of St. Paul’s companions (Colossians 4:11).' Admittedly that Catholic source goes on to say the following. 'Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common … it was imposed on our Lord by God’s express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to ‘save his people from their sins.'” '

173

Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

by Simon in

i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

Disillusioned JW

The USA Constitution has a bias against majority popular vote rule at the federal level, in regards to the number of US Senators from each state and in regards to having an Electoral College elect the USA President. Both factors result in a conservative bias towards who gets appointed to the USA Supreme Court.

Each state, regardless of the size of its population gets to send two people to the USA Senate. Since urban areas with large populations tend to be more politically liberal than areas with much smaller populations (such as rural areas), political conservatives get more representation in the US Senate than would otherwise be the case. Likewise by electing USA Presidents through an Electoral College system instead of purely by a national popular vote, a conservative has a slight edge in being elected president of the USA than a liberal/progressive, than would otherwise be the case.

The Senate factor preventing Obama (a Democratic) from filling as many vacancies in the USA Supreme than as would have been the case if the Republicans in the Senate would have not blocked an appointment of his (and for a time the USA Senate also had rules of requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on appointments to the USA Supreme Court) and the number of Senators was proportional to the size of each state. For example, the highly liberal/progressive state of California, despite its huge population, has the same number of USA Senators as the highly conservative states of Kentucky and Idaho, despite their much smaller populations.

Likewise the Electoral College system prevented Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) from being elected USA President, than would have been the case if a straight national popular vote system had been used to elect the President. If she had been elected USA President she would have filled vacancies in the USA Supreme Court instead of Donald Trump. Furthermore, if a straight national popular vote system had been used to elect the President, Al Gore (a Democrat) would have been elected President in the year 2000 instead of George W. Bush (a Republican).

The voting population of the USA at the national level is more liberal than the representation in the USA Senate.

Regarding Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court, I have a neutral view about it, perceiving both some good and bad about it. Perhaps I somewhat more approve of it having been overturned than I disapprove of it having been overturned. For me, the topic of abortion is complicated matter, but I feel sad when I think of human fetuses (or even chimpanzee fetuses) in the womb (or outside of the womb) being intentional killed. Likewise, infanticide saddens me.