OHappyDay

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 218 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OHappyDay

• 
  25

  WHO'S ARE YOU???

  by ebonychristian in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hello, my name is ebonychristian (ebony=caribbean {black}, christian=i am a protestant).

  i am an evangelist, and debating is my passion.

  my email address is [email protected], and please, feel free to use it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  I guess you mean "Whose are you?"

  I can't grasp the Trinity. If it ain't in the Bible I don't believe it, whether it is JW stuff or Protestant stuff.
• 
  6

  Bible versions, Psalm 83:18, which one to buy?

  by def in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i want to buy a new bible, nasb or niv.

  my jw friend says that the translation is not correct if psalm 83:18 left out the word jehovah.

  is this correct?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Though generally overlooked by Protestants, the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible is a very good translation, and uses "Yahweh" throughout the Old Testament, including Psalm 83:18.

  Other good modern versions are the NASB and the ESV (English Standard Version), which use LORD for the Tetragrammation.

  Frankly, anything used now is merely a substitute for the Divine Name YHWH, since no one knows how it was anciently pronounced. Or if they do know, they aren't telling.
• 
  8

  "Jehovah in the New Testament"

  by OHappyDay in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sincere pardons if this is posted here elsewhere and previously.. i received a copy of "jehovah in the new testament" from www.tetragrammaton.org.. the booklet's argument is that whereas "yahweh" or "jehovah" belongs in the old testament, because it is clearly there in the ancient texts, it does not belong in the new testament.. because there is not one ancient greek new testament manuscript that has "jehovah" in the text, only "lord.".

  this is so obvious and irrefutable that it is silly for the new world translation to continue on with this theological mistake.

  besides, in many passages where "jehovah" appears in the nwt new testament, it is simply jarring, out of place, and/or misleading.. actually, use of "jehovah" in the new testament distorts the meaning of the words of the apostles, and confuses the fact that "men ought to honor the son as they do the father.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Jehovah appears nowhere in the NT. Even Jesus didn't use that name in his so-called "model prayer."

  That Jesus didn't use it has got to be the most serious case against the JWs.

  Rather, Jesus used substitutions for God's Name, such as "Father," "the Power," etc., much like modern Jews use substitutes like "Hashem" and "Adonai."

  When Jesus said that he manifested his Father's "name," he must have meant that he did so symbolically by his acts, rather than literally by using the Tetragrammaton. The New Testament gives much evidence of Jesus' manifesting the traits of his Father, but absolutely no instance of his use of the name "Jehovah."
• 
  8

  "Jehovah in the New Testament"

  by OHappyDay in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sincere pardons if this is posted here elsewhere and previously.. i received a copy of "jehovah in the new testament" from www.tetragrammaton.org.. the booklet's argument is that whereas "yahweh" or "jehovah" belongs in the old testament, because it is clearly there in the ancient texts, it does not belong in the new testament.. because there is not one ancient greek new testament manuscript that has "jehovah" in the text, only "lord.".

  this is so obvious and irrefutable that it is silly for the new world translation to continue on with this theological mistake.

  besides, in many passages where "jehovah" appears in the nwt new testament, it is simply jarring, out of place, and/or misleading.. actually, use of "jehovah" in the new testament distorts the meaning of the words of the apostles, and confuses the fact that "men ought to honor the son as they do the father.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  The WT explanation is mere weasel words. The NWT claims to be a literal translation of the Greek New Testament text. So it is irrelevant that a few German, English, or whatever versions use "Jehovah" or its equivalent in the New Testament.

  God's Word in the New Testament was inscribed originally in Greek, so that is the text that matters. Not one of the thousands of existing ancient Greek manuuscripts uses "Jehovah," only "Lord" or "the Lord."

  And those versions that employ "Jehovah" in the NT usually do so very sparingly, as in NT quotations from the OT where the Tetragrammaton is found.

  But the NWT translator(s) just put in Jehovah wherever they thought it should be, or in consultation with certain Hebrew translations of the Greek text, most of these of recent origin (as compared to the ancient Greek texts).
• 
  21

  Comments You Will Not Hear at the 5-30-04 WT Study (April 15, 2004)

  by blondie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  comments you will not hear at the 5-30-04 (week of 5-24-31, 2004) wt study (4-15-04) abbreviated

  review comments

  will be in black and parentheses ().

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  How about...a 'Christian' servant of Jehovah??? I still have people ask me if I believe in JESUS!!!! It's 2004, do you think we can at least get the message out that WE'RE CHRISTIAN??????

  Not as long as it's always "Jehovah" - this, and "Jehovah"- that. Jesus is given such short space and so little time in the JW religion. Acts 1:8 says that Christians are "witnesses of [Jesus]," but that fact is apparently lost on JWs.

  It's an Old Testament religion mired in Old Testament harshness, despite the current call for showing "kindness."
• 
  8

  "Jehovah in the New Testament"

  by OHappyDay in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sincere pardons if this is posted here elsewhere and previously.. i received a copy of "jehovah in the new testament" from www.tetragrammaton.org.. the booklet's argument is that whereas "yahweh" or "jehovah" belongs in the old testament, because it is clearly there in the ancient texts, it does not belong in the new testament.. because there is not one ancient greek new testament manuscript that has "jehovah" in the text, only "lord.".

  this is so obvious and irrefutable that it is silly for the new world translation to continue on with this theological mistake.

  besides, in many passages where "jehovah" appears in the nwt new testament, it is simply jarring, out of place, and/or misleading.. actually, use of "jehovah" in the new testament distorts the meaning of the words of the apostles, and confuses the fact that "men ought to honor the son as they do the father.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Sincere pardons if this is posted here elsewhere and previously.

  I received a copy of "Jehovah in the New Testament" from www.tetragrammaton.org.

  The booklet's argument is that whereas "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" belongs in the Old Testament, because it is clearly there in the ancient texts, it does not belong in the New Testament.

  Because there is not one ancient Greek New Testament manuscript that has "Jehovah" in the text, only "Lord."

  This is so obvious and irrefutable that it is silly for the New World Translation to continue on with this theological mistake. Besides, in many passages where "Jehovah" appears in the NWT New Testament, it is simply jarring, out of place, and/or misleading.

  Actually, use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament distorts the meaning of the words of the apostles, and confuses the fact that "men ought to honor the Son as they do the Father." (John 5:23) In the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, the salvific mission of Jesus Christ is totally obscured. Jehovah's Witnesses do not really honor "Jesus [as] Lord!" (Philippians 2:11) because they only see Jehovah.

  It's a great little booklet!
• 
  21

  Comments You Will Not Hear at the 5-30-04 WT Study (April 15, 2004)

  by blondie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  comments you will not hear at the 5-30-04 (week of 5-24-31, 2004) wt study (4-15-04) abbreviated

  review comments

  will be in black and parentheses ().

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Masterful job as usual, Blondie! I have almost as many years in the Watch Tower as you had, and the need for an article like this shows Witnesses have lost fundamental Christian identifying marks.

  Even on some "loyal" boards Witnesses are complaining about present or past mistreatment and the lack of kindness in the congregations.

  It is as if nothing is really important so long as we are preaching. After spending nearly 5,000 hours to make one proselyte, kindness goes out the window once he or she is hooked.

  Of course, not all Witnesses are deficient in showing kindness, whether in the congregations or elsewhere. But it is not a priority with the Society.

  Keeping them in never seems to be as important as just bringing them in. What a shortsighted policy. But the rank and file is merely following the example of the big boys.
• 
  20

  Witnesses are broke

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i realize i risk making an over-generalization here, but i notice that many witnesses are just broke or nearly so.. this was reinforced with a recent incident in which i learned that only a few people in the congregation have any.

  health insurance - including elders.

  the wall street journal carried a front page article with graph that showed the.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Yes, Witnesses who lived their lives in loyalty to the Society's directives are mostly broke now. Those with money represent people who totally ignored the Society and lived their own lives, going into the military, going to college, working long hours, etc., and who much later became Witnesses.

  To bad Armageddon isn't really "just around the corner" for those old loyal ones. No paradise is in sight, and they are stuck with dealing with this old world until death claims them.

  And all the Society has to offer is, "We were wrong about the generation thing, and don't know when the End will come. Just hang in there. And preach, preach, preach!"
• 
  16

  JW apologists falling away?

  by OHappyDay in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  firpo carr disfellowshipped?

  greg stafford in limbo?.

  what's happening to all the former defenders of the jw religion?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  Firpo Carr disfellowshipped? Greg Stafford in limbo?

  What's happening to all the former defenders of the JW religion?

  Has the JW religion finally become impossible to defend?
• 
  11

  Factions Within the Watchtower

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  another poster alluded to a reality within bethel's walls - factions.. of course, open disputes are impossible within this secretive cult - so such disagreements are more discreet.. the watchtower allows for college - but the service dept ( i.e.

  ted jaracz) sez forget about it.. this is nothing new, the same thing happened with regard to the society's reaction to "multiple personality disorders".

  the writing dept.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OHappyDay

  But this is the Borg! Resistance is fu-tile!

  The problem is, as a recent book study lesson quoting Lord Acton said, "power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

  If a strong leader emerges, bent on reform, more likely it will be only a matter of time before he remakes the organization into his own image, rather than concentrating on original Christianity.

  What we need is something like the Catholic aggiornamento, wherein people with a real concern for the flock come together as equals, look at everything we do, hold on to the good stuff and toss the bad and irrelevant.

  Otherwise, we need to just tear everything down to the ground and build a new structure, dedicated to Christianitiy as Jesus Christ taught it.

  I think it could be done. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.