"Exes: Would You Rat On A Current JW?"
Unless it's child abuse or something like that, I feel zero responsibility or desire to do such a thing.
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
JoinedPosts by DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
-
26
Exes: Would You Rat On A Current JW?
by NotFormer init's an interesting thought.
if you are an ex jw, presumably dfed, and you see a current jw in good standing engaging in behaviour that would concern their elders, would you pass on that information to interested parties?
do accusations from exes and other outsiders carry any weight?
-
-
-
26
Is the USA gradually moving to a majority of citizens being non-religious
by Reasonfirst inthis is a topic discussed in a current article in the hongkong based asia times*.
find it at: https://asiatimes.com/2023/09/nones-still-no-match-for-us-christian-nationalism/.
the claim is made in the article, that near 30% of americans are non-believers, and that this number is increasing.
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
"Is the USA gradually moving to a majority of citizens being non-religious" this was a subject for discussion here 20 years ago.
-
43
Who are the 144K Male Jewish Virgins in Revelation 7?
by Sea Breeze inno mystery here.
they are all male jewish virgins, just like scripture says.
so, why all the muck and fuss?
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
"Who are the 144K Male Jewish Virgins in Revelation 7?"
This is not surprising. I have known many Jews who cannot get themselves laid.
-
20
Why do JW apostates tend to be activists against the religion?
by Vanderhoven7 inj. arden writes.
first of all an apostate is literally just someone who left.
most jws are technically apostates from the religions they were raised in.
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
I'd say the vast majority of "apostates" tend not to be activists, it's just that it's the activist ones that get noticed far beyond their numbers (because they are the noisy ones).
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.
a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
-
11
Nobody ever said JUH hovah or Jee sus until the 16th Century
by Terry inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na22kkydprshttps://www.dictionary.com/e/j/".
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
"Jehovah" is the received usage in English, much like other names from the Bible.
https://butler-harris.org/archives/1815
The unspoken premise for overthrowing this centuries-long usage is apparently
P1: “whenever the original pronunciation of a name is known, we should strive to pronounce it that way.”
The process of language formation makes it so that once a child’s linguistic root is established, it becomes hard, not only to pronounce, but even to hear phonemes that are not part of the linguistic repertoire of his mother tongue. Traditionally, this was accommodated in the standard naming of international entities. We say Munich, not München, Florence, not Firenze (with front tongue-flap ‘r’). Even when the transliteration is identical, say for Berlin or Paris, the pronunciation is quite different than that of the natives (rear glottal ‘r’, the dropped ’s’ sound, accent, and other differences).
The received transliterations of names, both sacred and secular, belie P1. As mentioned, it was not followed, partly because it is impossible to follow: P1 is a fool’s errand. The new clerics don’t pronounce the morpheme-pair Yah-weh as it would have been: namely, they leave out one or both of the puffs of air associated with the ‘h’ [2]. James White does a valiant effort with the first one; it’s almost impossible for an English speaker to pronounce both h’s without emptying his lungs and sounding like he just got in from a long jog.
It seems like no one has noticed that P1 is only ever applied to biblical names in this one case. For, there are numerous names in the Bible where, in contrast to the tetragrammaton, we know the original pronunciation [3]; yet there is not the slightest effort to “correct” our received English pronunciation. Just a few example of dozens that could be given:
1. We can start with Eve the wife of Adam. In Hebrew, this name is pronounced Chawa (where ‘ch’ represents the palatal fricative, like the light-form of the ‘ch’ in German). Yet I have yet to hear a preacher tell the story of Adam and Chawa. (Note that there would be a stronger case for using the Hebrew form here than there is for the Tetragrammaton, as it would set the stage to explain the linguistic connection with Eve as mother of the living.)
2. The great king of Israel was not Day’-vid, but Da-weed’ (where I am indicating the phonetic spelling and indicating the accented syllable). But imagine how silly and affected it would seem if a pastor preaching through I and II Samuel was always referring to a character named Da-weed’ (unless perhaps it was an “urban” church).
3. The name John is interesting, because this is given to us in the Greek NT text as Yoannes, but the Greek is already almost certainly an adaptation to Greek of the Hebrew or Aramaic Yo-cha-nahn’ which would have been spoken. There are two things to notice here. (i) by the same principle of P1, I suppose that is how our scholarchens should pronounce it: Yo-cha-nahn’. (ii) Notice however that the Holy-Spirit-inspired Greek text does not hesitate to transliterate Yo-cha-nahn’ rather freely into the Greek usage, without this overweening effort to be “accurate” — even though the writers would have known the “correct” pronunciation with apodeictic certainty, having heard and spoken it themselves.
4. Continuing in the NT, the name that comes to us as James in the tradition is actually Ya-ko’-boos. But imagine how affected and pretentious it would seem if your pastor spoke of Ya-ko’-boos and Yo-cha-nahn’, the sons of Zebedee.
So if the second reason for saying our new clerics are dishonest is that they can’t do it anyway, the third reason is that even if they had a good linguistic argument, and could carry it out, it still wouldn’t follow that we should change our received usage in English, and they do not do so in any other case — even when, unlike the Tetragram, there is indisputable linguistic knowledge.
Now perhaps our opponents will argue that the divine name is unique: all names can be morphed and adapted to our usage except divine names. But then they are not consistent, for they continue to use ‘God’, which is both a class and a name, instead of El or Elohim.
Moreover, the name of our Savior the God-man in the original usage was Yeshua/`. The guttural at the end of the Hebrew and Aramaic version is all but impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce without sounding like he is choking. Greek speakers likewise gave it up and transliterated to Iesous, from which the morph to Jesus is fairly clear even to a non-linguist I think. The name of His office in Hebrew, meshiach’ went into Greek as Xristos based not on sound but meaning, and into English by sound affinity as Christ (from Greek, when used as the name) or Messiah (from Hebrew/Aramaic, when used to tag the office). The name Jesus bears scant resemblance to any of the indicated forms of Yeshua.
-
5
Jesus and Hail Zeus
by enoughisenough inmaybe not the best subject area for post, but i was watching 3 different youtube channels in which pronounciations of god's and his son's names were being discussed.
all 3 agreed that the scribes ( i believe thought to be greek ) when copying yeshua ( jesus) into greek used a word ( instead of yeshua ) that in greek meant hail zeus so that christians would unwittingly praise their god.
at least 2 of the videos mentioned the nicean counsel and over 50 gods were being voted on and they finially voted on 2 : krishna and zeus ( jesus christ ) anyway, all of this was interesting to say the least.
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
The way "Joshua" is rendered in the Septuagint is "Iēsous."
The same way the name Jesus is rendered in Greek scriptures (since they are the same name).
You can verify with the Septuagint here (Book of Joshua). https://biblebento.com/index.html?lxx1i&60.1.1
It had nothing to do with Zeus.
-
11
Nobody ever said JUH hovah or Jee sus until the 16th Century
by Terry inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na22kkydprshttps://www.dictionary.com/e/j/".
-
-
DamnTheTorpedoesFullSpeedAhead
The Etymology of “Yahweh”
This is an educational dive into the way modern Christianity has been infiltrated and influenced by non-Christian parties, in this particular case, by a pair of Enlightenment-era etymologists.
Have you ever heard someone refer to God as “Yahweh”? That’s just the English for His revealed name in the OT, right? That must mean it’s the ancient Christian practice!
Let’s look at the genealogy of this one, because it is wild. N.b. this thread is not about “the secret name of God,” or YHWH, or Jehovah, or vowel pointing, or any other such debate. It is solely focused how & when the six letters “Yahweh” came into common use in English.
A friend asked this week whether a CPH commentary that insists on translating Lord as “Yahweh” is subversive. My first instinct was “yes, absolutely.” But what do I know? So I turned next to Google Ngrams, which searches over 8M books going back centuries. Ngrams shows just what I imagined: the term was invented in the last two centuries, and took off in popularity very recently. Neither of these are what you want to see when you’re considering sound doctrine. An unchanging God does not engender fickle beliefs.
Ngrams also lets you drill down to any date range to see precisely which hits are represented on the graph. After some spelunking, metadata errors, lots more googling, and hours of reading original source material, here is how we were tricked into saying “Yahweh”.
For thousands of years, there has been debate over the pronunciation of “YHWH”–the name “I am” which God gave Himself from the burning bush in Exodus 3. Written Hebrew of course has no vowels, so with only the text, there are numerous possibilities for any consonant set. “Jehovah” itself is one such made-up word, which deliberately transposes the vowel sounds from “Adonai” onto the consonants in “YHWH”. While the intention at the time was pious, it is highly relevant that no such thing was done in Jesus’ day.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) is the Old Testament that was commonly used in Jesus’ day. Hebrew was already a dead language in the 1st century, meaning it was no longer spoken conversationally and most couldn’t read it. Jesus quotes the LXX, as does the NT hundreds of times.
So it is relevant how the LXX treats the YHWH “I am”. What we find is that the word is simply and naturally translated “ego eimi”–”I am”. The 4th century Latin Vulgate also faithfully translates it simply as “ego sum”. Zero interest in it as a proper name, vs. a declaration.
This fact is crucial to the question because it ties directly to Christ’s Divinity. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I am” He said ego eimi, and the jews tried to murder Him on the spot for blasphemy. He didn’t use some special Hebrew utterance, but “I am”–God’s Name.
For over 14 centuries, every Christian believed that God’s revealed name to Moses was “I am”.
I’m neither a theologian nor an etymologist. But I am an exemplaragnitorian with a respectable track record for correctly sniffing out both bullshit and sulfur. And all the fake Hebrewisms that some Christians like to sling around with pious abandon have always struck me as redolent of both, so it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest to learn that “Yahweh” is an Enlightenment-era construction.
UPDATE: a thematically-related article that takes the position that the use of “Yahweh” is dishonest.
Over the last generation, most American clerics have switched to pronouncing the divine name as Yahweh. I want to make the case that this is dishonest at several levels. First, few can even give a cogent summary of the reasons why Yahweh is to be preferred to Jehovah even though willing to disrupt the tradition over it. I am confident of this because even at the august Westminster Seminary, I caught three professors in the Hebrew OT department out of class and asked why we should say Yahweh. Two of them waved me off to “look it up.” The third, the only one to have an earned PhD from Harvard, said that Jehovah was an entirely possible way the tetragrammaton was pronounced; he used Yahweh as a disruptive mechanism, to shake people out of their comfort zone.