OY ... Did we really read them ?

by RAF 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  RAF

  Did we really read them ? (the quotes and the GB)

  Colossian 1:15

  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

  When the Governing Body tells that GOD is YHWH translated in Jehovah : do they really know what this tetragram means to say (I make to become) in being written Y for Yod, H for He, W for Wav and H for He (which is actually a concept)

  Yod : potential = father / He : in action in this place = fecondity / Wav : résulte = son / He in action in this place = creator. (resume essence by fecondity leads to the son = god in action) = CREATION (makes to become)

  and that's exactly what the bible says : whithout him (Christ) NUTS ! (John 1:1-5) so what is YOD exactly if not essence of everything (even biblicaly talking - since we can read in it that Wav is the God in action in God by fecondidity at maturity) I mean it's about every possible kind of evolution here NO ?

  Now skip the brakets in the quote : John 14:6-9 (when does a translator use brakets if not when "he" supposed that what is written is not precise enough to be understood the way he wants it to be understood) :

  6 Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him.”

  8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

  9 Jesus said to him: “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

  It's seems like more we want to see God big and less we can see how big "IT" IS (even biblically talking)
  Ephesian 4: 6 "one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all." (ESSENCE)

  Really the GB is a joke !

  Do you have other examples ? (poste them) : got plenty ... O_O !!! ... (but ain't got the time to put them all here) it made me sick when I realised how much those Jokers mystaken all my familly ... and I'm juste glad that now at least 3 of us are free.

  search and you'll find - well NOT in JWLAND ... (false love , false propheties ... poor believers, no "grace" but : check the incoherence in : James 4:6

  6 However, the undeserved kindness which he gives is greater. Hence it says: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.

  OY OY OY ... do we really want to follow/study with any GB which can't understand what "grace" means and absolutly needs to translate it as "undeserved kindness" (does that talk about love : underserved kindness ??? !!! GIZZZZZZZZZZ - Really just follow your heart GOD, is problably there ("in all" Ephésian 4:6) to answer your question with understanding (by sincerity). but if you really feel like to belong and follow the blinds and moreover humans remember :

  I Corinthians 6:4

  4 For when one says: “I belong to Paul,” but another says: “I to A·pol´los,” are YOU not simply men?
• 

  RAF

  Ooop the last verse is I Corinthian 3:4 (Sorry) and the end of this chapter talks too
• 

  Tyrone van leyen

  Hi Raf. Not only that, but there are no consonants in the name YHWH. They were transposed vowels, from the words, Elohim and Adonai. The name was too sacred to pronounce, and the vowels, are forever lost to time. If God had wanted his name known, he would have put the vowels in place.

  In John 1 verse 1, The original Koinos Greek, did not have a definite article. "and the word was God", is exactly what it meant. If you add, an article to it, "and the word was a god', it changes the whole meaning and can support a different beleif.

  Revelation 21. " He who adds to this scroll or takes away from this scroll, shall be taken away from the scroll of life.
• 

  Tyrone van leyen

  Oh ya, your first question was, Did you read them? Not really, I was too busy picking lint off the front seats.
• 

  cameo-d

  7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him.”

  "from this moment on YOU know him (the Father) "

  This is rather intriguing. Why wouldn't he say you have known of the father? Or why would he not say you have known my father partially from the words of the prophets, or the scrolls? Why would he not acknowledge that people had known his father from previous teachings...why would Jesus not acknowledge that the Father could be somewhat known from these things in the past? Why does he say it is only "from this moment on" that you know "the Father"? To me it seems that he does not validate "yahweh". He never mentions "the father" by any name, only using "abba" once that I know of. Is he saying something between the lines..by not saying?
• 

  RAF

  hi Ty and Cameo D thanks for sharing your thoughts..

  I've introduced this thread with this question because ... after really debating (if I can tell debating with my sisters in fact against the GB arguments wich they really sticked to) Now when they read their bible and litterature they are the one who point out incoherences / non sense... it's funny somehow.

  And thought it would be cool to share them on this thread ...