god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
There is general agreement that Yahweh is being invoked in connection with Samaria ... this suggests tha Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, and raises a question over the relationship between YAHWEH + KAUS - the national god of EDOM
As previously stated in this thread, it's entirely unremarkable that Yahweh was in fact a deity of earlier and other people in the region of Canaan. YHWH/YHVH (Jehovah/Allah/God) are the exact same thing - a supposed deity of Canaanite tribes.
god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
God's real name and identity YHVH
YHWH - fraudulent identity.
Fact is, YHVH and YHWH are both entirely valid transliterations of the tetragrammaton. Just as both vav and waw are entirely valid spellings of the name of the Hebrew letter. There is zero difference in meaning.
Apparently it is not a joke.
(I see others have already posted the Snopes link.)
god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
*lost*, I agree with others who have said to keep digging. But just remember that all that glitters is not gold.
It's not particularly surprising that the English word Jehovah has a fairly recent origin (setting aside the fact that Yahweh is a more accurate translation), especially since all English words have a relatively recent origin. Words mean what they mean. When a community of people (e.g. people who speak English) all understand a word to mean a certain thing, that is what the word means. Words don't carry 'mystical' 'secret' intrinsic meanings in addition to how the word is understood (though certain communities may assign additional meaning, as is the case with jargon). Saying a thing is something else doesn't actually change what the thing is; to insist otherwise is a false syllogism. (The fact that 'Jehovah' isn't real also has no impact on the meaning of the words.)
The suggestion that JWs are 'really' worshipping 'Satan' on the basis of the loosely related Hebrew words is particularly flawed because a) the words (Strongs 1943 and Strongs 3068) are only indirectly related (it's like insisting that two cousins must really be the same person because they have the same grandparents); b) in early Hebrew culture, and in fact throughout the Old Testament, 'a satan' did not originally refer to a specific 'individual', and Satan (capital S) is a much later invention; and c) there is no direct connection between the implied negative connotation of the indirectly related Hebrew words and the 'Satan' character.
god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
by the way I'm awaiting my Mother's Day breakfast. It's going to be a good day.
Enjoy your MD breakfast.
god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
IT IS NOT MY FANCIFUL NOTION it is information that is out there regarding the conundrum.
Well, no, it's not just yours, and I never said it was. You're primarily parroting the John J Parsons ministeries website content and other fringe sources. You haven't actually presented any particularly authoritative sources on the matter at all.
good job there were women who HAD BALLS and fought for their rights and fredos otherwise man would still have them naked and barfoot in the kitchen with a harry of kids.
Wow. Your rambling tangent just went off the map.
SHARING OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO A CERTAIN PERSON, INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY UNKOWN TO SAID PERSON .
It's not really information if it's just not true. The dogmatic connections you're making (repeating) between indirectly related Hebrew words are just wrong.
god's real name and identity yhvh.
yhwh - fraudulent identity.. .
can we all sue wt for evidenced fraud and deliberate deception ??
You really don't think it is valid for 7 million + people who are stuck in a cult worshiping somothing that is not what they think it is.
There are plenty of actual issues with the religion that are worthy of focus rather than incorrect fringe intepretations about words that are only remotely etymologically related.
Like the JWs, you seem more interested in 'your' 'Truth' rather than actual truth.
Fact is, this purported issue of the 'real' meaning of the name of a fictitious tribal deity is of about as much academic value as 'Bible code' conspiracy theorists. (That isn't a comment about thelogical study in general either. It is specifically in reference to the word games you're playing, based on the work of other fringe theorists.)
i decided to ask this on the back of "lost"'s thread about yhvh etc.. quite often on here we get bible believers trying to tie the whole mess that is the bible together, and maintaining that it tells us about just one "true" god.. who is this "true" god, and what is the proof that he is true ?.
was he the god of abraham and melchizedech ?.
the god of the ordinary jew before the babylonian exile ?.
I must of missed your list on paganism ? are you denying the history of paganism as it doesn't correspond with the dictionary definition. do not words contain much more than a basic bland definition, eg thesarus.
It's "Must have missed". Anyway... as previously stated, the 'history of paganism' you asserted is a very modern application of the word, and not the earlier actual meaning of the word pagan. In any case, even according to your preferred definition, that kind of 'Paganism' isn't really much different to the origins of the story of Israel's god anyway.
gosh, we better burn all them history books and classic literatures, maybe we'll end up under a totalitarian rule after all, should of just let Hitler have his way
And Godwin's law strikes again.
kneeling before the altar in vatican square the new pope along with some younger men kissed the cloth as the ceremony began to install hundreds of new saints for the catholic faithful.
included in this group were 813 catholics beheaded in 1480 by the turks who wanted them to convert to islam.
several nuns were sainted for there nursing and teaching work.
james_woods:
I thought that sainthood in the RCC involved a lot more scrutiny (and was much more rare) than this.
The 'Pope' (Jorge) can 'declare' martyrs as 'saints' without much procedure. Otherwise there 'has to' be 'proof' that the prospective 'saint' has 'interceeded' in 'miracles', which is just a lot of superstitious drivel. Such 'proof' might be that a cancer patient got better after someone prayed for them. (Oh, and they might have had surgery and radiotherapy and chemotherapy. But it was 'really' a miracle and they would have gotten better anyway without all that 'medical mumbojumbo'. )
kneeling before the altar in vatican square the new pope along with some younger men kissed the cloth as the ceremony began to install hundreds of new saints for the catholic faithful.
included in this group were 813 catholics beheaded in 1480 by the turks who wanted them to convert to islam.
several nuns were sainted for there nursing and teaching work.
Isn't there something more useful the 'Pope' could be doing than redundant ceremonies for people who died a long time ago? Maybe teaching African Catholics about contraception? Or selling some artworks to feed the poor?
