What hope is there then?
by sayitsnotso 290 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
undercover
I have no issue with not knowing the original pronounciation of YHWH, or with the fact that the vowels that are used to derive Yahweh or Jehovah are from the Hebrew word for Lord.
Would you have an issue if your name was continually mistranslated and mispronounced?
The Society itself says how important it is to use God's name
The Divine Name - It's Use and It's Meaning
How important is God’s name? Consider the model prayer that Jesus Christ gave. It begins this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) Later, Jesus prayed to God: “Father, glorify your name.” In response, God spoke from heaven, saying: “I both glorified it and will glorify it again.” (John 12:28) Clearly, God’s name is of the utmost importance. Why, then, have some translators left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_01.htm
Yet, the Society acknowledges that no one knows the correct pronounciation or spelling. They admit that the modern version is a mish-mash of vowels and original consonants. Of course they mealy mouth their way around never saying that it's a mis-translation but in essence that's what it is.
The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever:
The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced.
I have to interrupt the WT writer here.... how ironic is it that the WTS names their brochure on God's name "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" yet admits that no one knows how it is pronounced. If no one knows how it's pronounced, then it didn't endure to now, let alone forever...
Continuing:
Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God's name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants.
While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation "Ltd." represents "Limited" and "bldg." represents "building").
Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word 'Adho·nai' ("Sovereign Lord"). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God's name was eventually forgotten.
In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at that time was preserved.
When it came to God's name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai'. From this came the spelling Iehouah, and, eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God's name from the Hebrew original.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm
So, as admitted by the WTS, the translation of Jehovah is in error.
Now, I wouldn't really make such a big deal out of this except for one thing...
The JWs have gone around since the time of Rutherford shoving JEHOVAH down our throats claiming that this is God's name and that we should use it. Yet, as they finally admit in the Divine brochure, it's not...not really.
So again, you have a religion claiming to be the one true religion but cannot even be totally honest about it's use of God's name.
When it comes to something as fundamental as to God's name, shouldn't the religion that emphasizes the use of his personal name at least try to use the most correct version?
-
PSacramento
From the above link:
ITEM 11. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The following table sets forth, as of July 31, 2002, our outstanding Class A
Common Stock owned of record or beneficially by each person who owned of record,
or was known by us to own beneficially, more than 5% of our Common Stock, and
the name and shareholdings of each Executive Officer and Director and all
Executive Officers and Directors as a group. A person is deemed to be the
beneficial owner of securities that can be acquired by such person within 60
days from the date of this report upon the exercise of warrants or options. Each
beneficial owner's percentage ownership is determined by assuming that options
that are held by such person and which are exercisable within 60 days from the
date are exercised.
<PAGE>
Page 26
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S><C>
Name Class A Shares Owned Percentage of
Class A Shares
Owned
<S> <C> <C>
John G. Robertson, Chairman of the Board 5,781,350 51.22%
of Directors, President and Director (1) (2)
The Watchtower Society (3) 5,073,200 44.94%
James McCann (4) 5,073,200 44.94%
Rand Energy Group Inc. (5) 5,073,200 44.94%
Jennifer Lorette, Vice President and Director 85,500 *
(6)
James Vandeberg, Chief Operating Officer 76,000 *
and Director (7)
Patrick Badgley, Vice President, Research 75,000 *
and Development and Director (8)
ALL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS & 6,017,850 53.31%
DIRECTORS AS A GROUP (FOUR
INDIVIDUALS) (9)
</TABLE>
Except as noted below, all shares are held beneficially and of record and each
record shareholder has sole voting and investment power.
*Less than one percent of the issued and outstanding on July 31, 2002 which was
11,287,935
(1) These individuals may be deemed to be our "parents or founders" as that term
is defined in the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Act of
1933.
(2) Includes 5,073,200 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc.
See Note (5) below for an explanation of the beneficial ownership of Rand Energy
Group Inc. Mr. Robertson disclaims beneficial ownership of these shares beyond
the extent of his pecuniary interest. Also includes 700,000 options that are
currently exercisable. Mr. Robertson's address is the same as the Company's.
(3) Includes 5,073,200 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc.
See Note (5) below for an explanation of the beneficial ownership of Rand Energy
Group Inc.
(4) Includes 5,073,200 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc.
See Note (5) below for an explanation of the beneficial ownership of Rand Energy
Group Inc.
(5) Rand Energy Group Inc. is owned 51% by Reg Technologies Inc. and 49% by
Rand Cam Engine Corp. Under Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, both Reg Technologies Inc. and Rand Cam Engine Corp. could be considered
the beneficial owner of the 5,073,200 shares registered in the name of Rand
Energy Group Inc.
Reg Technologies Inc. is a British Columbia corporation listed on the Canadian
Venture Exchange that has financed the research on the Rand Cam Engine since
1986. Since October 1984 Mr. Robertson has been President and a Director of Reg
Technologies Inc. SMR Investment Ltd., a British Columbia corporation, holds a
controlling interest in Reg Technologies Inc. Since May 1977 Mr. Robertson has -
sacolton
sayitisntso:
If you want to side with BeDuhn as creditable, then you better accept that he leaves open the possibility of the trinity doctrine. You can't have it both ways and "pick and chose" the stuff he accepts and dismiss the rest. BeDuhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy. John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, BeDuhn suggests. He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree. Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering "leaves open" a Trinitarian solution.
So, which is it? Do you favor BeDuhn's translation, but dismiss his possible trinity acceptance?
-
OUTLAW
Sayitsnotso..
There you have it..It had to be spoon fed to you.
Just like the WBT$ Crap you`ve already swallowed..
LOL!!..
The WBT$ is invested in War..Just like me..
Both of us recieved our Rand Cam shares as Gifts..
Both of us could return our gifts..We both have decided not to..
Both of us knowingly Profit from War..
So..
Do you have a Defense,for the Indefenseable?..
-
sayitsnotso
Okay I missed the link to the sec (though I found randytv's site). I'll have to review more before I comment. Also, when I try to go to http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ I get "Directory Browsing Not Allowed Here.' How does one access the directly, well directly to find more recent documentation for REGI U.S., IN.
-
PSacramento
Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/922330/000106299302000371/form10k.txt
-
sayitsnotso
There you have it..It had to be spoon fed to you.
Look, I have limited time. I knew that by asking that question someone would show me the link. Sorry if that means I'm lazy. It doesn't mean I want to have things spoon fed.
Both of us could return our gifts..We both have decided not to..
Okay, let's run with that Idea. How would this be different than recieving a Christmas Gift? One could decide to accept or reject it and not be participating in Christmas celebrations. How is that any different than receiving a finnacial instrument as a gift? Does that automatically mean the recipient has the same views as the giver?
-
sayitsnotso
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/922330/000106299302000371/form10k.txt
That is for 2002. I'm curious if there is a more recent archive of that document.
