Posts by slimboyfat

2017 provides an image that shows hebrew writing with the statement: “the personal name of god written in ancient hebrew characters appears abundantly in early manuscripts of the bible”.. alongside that image, the awake!

provides a listing to show “the rendering of ‘god’s name’ in various languages”.. the facts do not support either assertion that the watchtower society makes:.

slimboyfat

Is there any debate on the following Hebrew name being written as ‘Jeremiah’?

How come it has a gimel at the start?

(I posted this message yesterday)

110

References to YHWH in ancient documents

by Doug Mason in

page 15 of awake!

2017 provides an image that shows hebrew writing with the statement: “the personal name of god written in ancient hebrew characters appears abundantly in early manuscripts of the bible”.. alongside that image, the awake!

provides a listing to show “the rendering of ‘god’s name’ in various languages”.. the facts do not support either assertion that the watchtower society makes:.

slimboyfat

Doug I have got a copy of Manuscript, Society and Belief somewhere, but I don't know where among my books. I cannot say for sure exactly what Roberts says. In general he argues for Christian innovation in scribal practices including the nomina sacra. And like Hurtado, he argues that Jesus was the first nomen sacrum, based on Christian gematria and the word "life". But I would be surprised if he argued there was no connection with the Tetragrammaton and its treatment. In fact I am pretty sure he allows for some connection, as Hurtado and others continue to do. The nomina sacra occur within a context in which reverence for the divine name is important, although the direct relationship between the two is difficult to pin down on the available evidence.

jhine if we only had access to copies of the LXX from the third century onwards there would be no direct evidence for the divine name in the early LXX either. Somehow Christians managed to remove the divine name from the textual tradition of the LXX at an early stage. So the argument is quite straight forward: if Christians succeeded in removing the divine name from the LXX the same could have happened in the textual transmission of the New Testament. So it is certainly feasible that this happened. That having been conceded, it becomes a matter of looking at the evidence for and against. I would argue that the strongest evidence in favour of the divine name in the original NT is the many passages that make much more sense if it used the divine name. For example the passage in Acts that specifically talks about the divine name in chapter 15, plus the recurring quotation of the phrase "the Lord said to my lord" from the Psalm, which struggles to even make sense without reference to the divine name.

110

References to YHWH in ancient documents

by Doug Mason in

page 15 of awake!

2017 provides an image that shows hebrew writing with the statement: “the personal name of god written in ancient hebrew characters appears abundantly in early manuscripts of the bible”.. alongside that image, the awake!

provides a listing to show “the rendering of ‘god’s name’ in various languages”.. the facts do not support either assertion that the watchtower society makes:.

slimboyfat

What does it mean? Earlier you wrote:

As l said when the NT writers were quoting from the the OT they DELIBERATELY rendered YHWH as Kyrios . l cannot see why there is such a struggle with this , except that most people on the site seem to still see this through JW coloured glasses and cannot or will not even contemplate that this means that the NT writers meant this to mean that they equated Yeshua with YHWH .

What I am pointing out is that it's not only JWs who have argued that the original New Testament contained the divine name. A number of scholars with no JW background or sympathies have also come to the conclusion that the New Testament originally used the divine name and it was later replaced by kyrios. These scholars include: David Trobisch, George Howard, Lloyd Gaston and John McRay. I can supply more detailed references if you are interested.

53

Which is better minimum wage or minimum income?

by hoser in

jw
friends

we were having this discussion in the office the other day and we came to the conclusion minimum wage is better because it still adds to the economy vs minimum income which someone could potentially stay at home and do nothing and still get paid without producing a thing for the greater economy.. thoughts?.

slimboyfat

Maybe that's too high. What about £1200 or $2000, or the equivalent. That might be enough to live on without a car, holidays or other luxuries. I wonder if, instead of giving billions to bail out banks and subsidise banker bonuses, the money was distributed as a basic income to everyone, would it cost more or less. Plus factoring in the removal of current payments and savings from scrapping the bureaucracy required to administer the current system. Would it cost money or save money? The marginal propensity to spend is greater for smaller incomes, so it would be a tremendous boost to the economy too.

Trials of such schemes I think have tended to show that few people choose not to work. Instead activity and productivity increase overall. There are all sorts of positive effects for individuals and society as a whole.

But like I say, even if the evidence shows it saves money, increases well being, and boosts the economy, some people would opppose it anyway.

340

Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

by dubstepped in

jw
friends

so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

slimboyfat

God, for many believers, is not conceived as a being or an item or a thing. I know materialists think "well who made God then" is a killer line. But it simply misunderstands what many believers think God is or what can even be said about him. In a crucial sense it is the essence of God that he is such that he is sufficient in himself. The reason for believing in God is that he is the source of everything. So to ask where he came from is to miss the point. We know that we are finite beings. The question is whether there is a being who is not finite. When atheists insist that God must have an origin if he exists, as asserting nothing more than their belief that only finite beings can exist. Which is begging the question..

110

References to YHWH in ancient documents

by Doug Mason in

page 15 of awake!

2017 provides an image that shows hebrew writing with the statement: “the personal name of god written in ancient hebrew characters appears abundantly in early manuscripts of the bible”.. alongside that image, the awake!

provides a listing to show “the rendering of ‘god’s name’ in various languages”.. the facts do not support either assertion that the watchtower society makes:.

slimboyfat

Non-JW scholars who have argued for the divine name in the original New Testament: George Howard, David Trobisch, Lloyd Gaston and John McRay. Do you don’t need to be a JW to interpret the evidence that way.