Hello to any AOL users!
At Keyword AOL News, there is a discussion entitled: Is it right for a parent to refuse medical treatment for their child?
Don't know if anyone is interested!
Cheers :o)
ChristianObserver
JoinedPosts by ChristianObserver
-
3
AOL users - parental rights - medical treatment
by ChristianObserver inhello to any aol users!.
at keyword aol news, there is a discussion entitled: is it right for a parent to refuse medical treatment for their child?.
don't know if anyone is interested!.
-
-
-
70
Why say Jehovah anymore?
by Bang inthe wtbts uses the word 'jehovah' to lord it over people.
it's great that they picked on a made up name - it's a gift horse in the mouth for you to be so at liberty to drop it.
(i love sayings, you know, a gift , horse / pride, and from their own mouth?)..
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
I posted this elsewhere, but thought it might add some information to this thread. It picks up on an earlier comment about the meaning of the Hebrew word 'hovah, which although possibly from a different root, is sufficient for some to avoid the name Jeh*vah.
The following posting appeared on the *Topics Suggestions* section of the Christianity Board of AOL in response to a *cut and paste* from the CDRom by a regular Jehovah's Witness poster to that board.
'Much has been written about the name of God in the Bible and there are 'sacred name' groups which are at pains to discover the correct pronunciation of a name which stopped being pronounced more than 2,000 years ago by the Jewish people for fear of breaking the 3rd commandment.
Biblical Hebrew being consonantal supported by an oral tradition, it relied on that oral tradition in order to preserve the name of God. Without the continued oral expression of the 'name', despite the efforts of many to establish its correct pronunciation, reliance on 4 letters alone (tetragrammaton) has caused problems, despite 'clues' from other words which include part of that name, and other linguistic indications.
If we think of a name which has 4 consonants, the second and fourth being the same, such as MaRJoRie, then remove the vowels, we can see how the problem developed. [This will - hopefully - indicate how YHWH (the 4 consonants used for the name of God as Biblical Hebrew was consonantal) had the vowels of 'adonai'/'elohim' placed above/below to remind the reader to say either 'adonai' or 'elohim' in place of vocalising YHWH when reading from the scriptures, and how the 'hybrid' name Jehovah was reached in the English language].
MRJR is certainly not Marjorie's name, and without consistent pronunciation of the name 'Marjorie', in the absence of any other record of the whole name, the original pronunciation could quite possibly be lost. Then take a couple of words which you are allowed to use in place of the name 'Marjorie' - say daughter and grandmother - then put the vowels of those names above or below the 4 consonants:
a u e
M R J R
a o eso that whenever you come to read MRJR, you actually say daughter or grandmother. And then 12 centuries or so later (maybe earlier?), someone believes that the vowels that appear from the name daughter, are actually the vowels which make up the whole name, thus producing the name MaRuJeR. But then the letter M is represented by the letter N in the language of translation and the letter J is represented by the letter Y, and so the name NaRuYeR becomes Marjorie's name and it is then transferred as nearly as possible to this deduced name, into other languages. The name Marjorie represented graphically by MRJR has disappeared and the hybrid name 'Naruyer' replaces it.
In this way, we have moved from YHVH in Hebrew via medieval Latin Iehouah, Iehoua to Jehovah. However, when Jehovah was first used, the letter J was probably pronounced as a Y and the letter V as a W - so the pronunciation of what was written as Jehovah would have actually been Yehowah.
After the exile in 6th century BC, and more generally from the 3rd century BC, YHVH stopped being vocalised except on the Day of Atonement in the High Priest's blessing.
It has been stated on here that (cut and paste from CDRom): >whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read Isaiah 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he would have pronounced the divine name. This can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-John 17:6, 26. >
I would suggest that the fact that Jesus was not immediately thrown out of the Synagogue after reading from Isaiah would provide strong evidence that Jesus did not, in fact, pronounce the 'name' at that time. (Sotah 7, 6) Sanhedrin 7, 5, records that a blasphemer was not guilty unless he pronounced the 'Name' - but Luke tells us 4 v 22 'And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.' At that point, not the reaction of a crowd who had just witnessed blasphemy I would have thought. They were later enraged, however, when Jesus made claims that caused them offence - but not at the point when Jesus had just finished reading from the Scriptures.
Was Jesus reading in Hebrew, Greek or even Aramaic? Did Jesus keep faithfully to the text? If we look at what He said, although septuagintal in character, it does not match it exactly and it has elements of the Masoretic Text. Also the majority of the Septuagint texts which we have do not in fact contain the Tetragrammaton, so we do not know whether the 'name' appeared in the scroll from which Jesus was reading.
To pass from the statement that Jesus would have pronounced God's name without any evidence for this, but rather, I would suggest, with evidence to the contrary, to:
"he would have pronounced the divine name. This can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-Joh 17:6, 26."
is therefore problematical. A conclusion is being based on an unsupported premise.
If Jesus had 'pronounced' God's name, why is the pronunciation of that name so difficult to recover? Even if the Jewish converts were loathe to pronounce the name, would this have stopped the Gentile converts? We know that Christianity started with an oral tradition, so surely this would have preserved that name?
In considering the beginning of the Lord's prayer, 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name', why is the actual name of God omitted? If Jesus had used that name, wouldn't it have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Lord's prayer if not in the texts? Wasn't this an ideal opportunity for the name of God to be 'called upon'? But instead, Jesus begins with 'Our Father in Heaven' as opposed to beginning with YHVH - and then states 'hallowed be thy name'. Would this indicate the possibility that Jesus, in accordance with the customs of the day, acknowledges the sanctity of the name of God, attributes holiness to it, but fails to vocalise it?
And at John 17 vv 6 and 26, (cut and paste from the CDRom): 'I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world' and 'I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them'.
How did Jesus make known/manifest God's name? Did He pronounce the name of God, or did He come to make known God's love as that of a Father? Have we moved from a more 'remote' deity in the Old Testament whose 'personal' name had ceased to be pronounced by the Jews, to a deeper understanding of God in the New Testament based on Jesus' promotion of God as 'Father', enabling a more 'personal' relationship? This is just one aspect - there are other points here - but this is already getting lengthy!
The name of Yehoshua (Jesus) is YHVH's salvation. He 'personified' YHVH's salvation' and He has made 'known' YHVH's relationship to man, and by His sacrifice on the cross, will (v 26) further make known YHVH's name - i.e. His provision for salvation through Yehoshua. When Jesus leaves the disciples to ascend to Heaven, the second 'witness' will be sent - the Holy Spirit - the spirit of truth.
I don't see v 26 speaking about YHVH's literal name, for if it did, the future 'making known' does not make sense imo.
And moving on to the preaching of the Gospel, if we look at the Acts
of the Apostles, whose is the name:which is called upon (Acts 9 vv 14, 21);
healed by (Acts 3 vv 6, 16; 4 vv 10, 30);
saved by (Acts 4 v 12; 10 v 43; 22 v 16);
baptised in (Acts 2 v 38; 8 v 16);
taught and preached in (Acts 4 v 18; 5 v 28; 8 v 12);
spoken in (Acts 4 v 17; 9 vv 27, 29);
suffered for (Acts 5 v 41; 9 v 16; 15 v 26);
forgiven through (Acts 10 v 43);
borne before the nations (Acts 9 v 15);
called or designated by (Acts 11 v 26)?It is the name of Yehoshua - YHVH's salvation. The 2 names are bound together and embedded in each other. (But it is this recurrence of 'in Jesus' name' which has resulted in the formation of the 'Jesus Only' Pentecostal group (which numbers about 6 million I think I read somewhere....) - have been having a long discussion with a member of this group).
So where does that leave us in relation to 'knowing' or using the 'name'? As Christians -
Should we adopt the name 'Yahweh' which, as a name can be used by speakers of any language, and which seems to be the name favoured by the majority of scholars, but which may not be 100% accurate in its pronunciation (Yahowah being another possibility)?
Do we reject the pronunciation 'Yahweh' on the grounds that it also sounds very like the ablative form of the noun Jupiter?
Should we use the name 'Jehovah', a name 'accidentally' applied by a 13th century Spanish monk through an error in understanding of the vowel pointings added to the Tetragrammaton, but which is a name that english speakers are familiar with and recognise as applying to God, though it is not His name?
Do we reject that name because of the unpleasant connotations of the word 'hovah' in Hebrew?
Should we use our own language versions of the words 'God' or 'Lord' as did the Jews as we are no longer certain of the pronunciation of 'YHVH' and God would understand anyway?
Should we call on 'Our Father' as Jesus suggested in the Lord's Prayer?
For me, if we knew exactly the pronunciation of God's name, I would favour its inclusion in the Old Testament, in its original form with footnotes/explanations. Without that knowledge we are left with the decision either to include a hybrid name or to translate with a 'title'. Most translators opt for the latter course using the Septuagint as a precedent and also following the practice of the Jewish people.
With the New Testament, we encounter difficulties where many passages quoted from the Old Testament are septuagintal in character. This has implications from a translation view point - do you include in the translation, YHVH, which does not appear in the manuscripts from which you are translating on the basis that 'it should have done' or might have done? Clearly the WBTS would say 'yes'; orthodox translators generally maintain not.
Most orthodox translations do not include 'YHVH'. The WBTS includes, however, the hybrid name 'Jehovah'. This name is included due to 'familiarity' with this name in the English language, despite knowledge that it is not in fact God's name. There are a few occasions where 'Jehovah' is not added, however, in the NWT New Testament where the Old Testament passage would suggest that it should be (scholars have suggested examples such as Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philemon 2:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; and Revelation 22:21), and these are instances where an inclusion might compromise the Christology of the WBTS.
Orthodox Christianity and the WBTS suggest 'theological' bias in the translation of the Bible on the part of the other. As the 2 groups hold to different Christological views and are responsible for their own translations, inevitably this leads to conflict between the two groups in areas where translation from the Greek leads to 'interpretation'.
Orthodox Christianity which calls on great scholarship from Greek experts in their Biblical translation looks askance at the NWT which was produced by an 'anonymous' group of 6 men from the WBTS, whose identities once made known by a former member of the organisation, indicated that only one member had any knowledge of Greek (2 years) and was self taught in Hebrew. Some scholars are highly critical of the translation which it claims fails to recognise the 'nuances' of the languages translated and which is also inconsistent in applying some of the self set translation rules which it originally claimed.
Meanwhile the WBTS considers that there is theological bias in orthodox translation due to exposure to accepted ideas about doctrinal issues - the Christological view being one of the main areas where they see a problem. They consider that the traditional Churches are in error and that there has been 'apostasy' from the original message, and that they alone have the 'truth'.'
I have heard Jehovah's Witnesses state that the omission of the divine name from the Bible is blasphemy.
I have also read the opinions of orthodox Jews who consider that the *distortion* and acknowledged inaccuracy of G*d's name as represented by the WTBTS - i.e. Jeh*vah - is blasphemy.
If the scholars are correct, then the name YHWH is rooted in the verb *to be* - a *doing* word - *I am that I am* - which has past, present and future connotations - and as such is different to other names which often have their representation in the material world. YHWH transcends the physical world - YHWH cannot be bound by graven images or man made representations - He is outside that sphere.
In the traditions of virtually every people group, there was a *mystical* element to the knowledge of a name and in magic, the *calling* on a name meant that the potential energy residing in that name could be harnessed if used in a curse. The misuse of the name YHWH was forbidden and the name was committed in trust to Israel - the worship of any other god was therefore a profanation of the name of YHWH.
One thing that is certain according to Hebrew scholars, Jehovah is not the name which God gave to Moses when he asked God to disclose His name. As names can be transferred from one language to another providing that the phonetic elements are capable of pronunciation by the native speakers (think of footballers and international stars - generally newsreaders are at pains to pronounce these names correctly in order to show *respect*), where does that leave us with God's name? In the case of the WTBTS, shouldn't they be at pains to pronounce that correctly too if they are making a thing about the Divine name per se, or at least attempt to pronounce it as closely as possible?
But if we have been taught something that is incorrect and have become accustomed to its use, prayerful consideration may confirm our continuation or may lead us to change - it is all to do with our own relationship (or lack of it) with God - imho!
Just another 2 cents from this quarter! *Groan* - forgive the unintended pun!
-
49
I've been studying.........
by bchapp ini have been studying with the jw's for several years.
they have been pressuring me to become one of them, but something seems to be holding me back, instinct maybe?
i agree a lot of their teaching are good, and i'm sure are the truth but here are a few of the things that bother me: jw's use the scripture hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the gathering of yourselves together...... to justify their meetings.
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
The following posting appeared on the Christianity Board of AOL (Topic Suggestions folder) in response to a *cut and paste* from the CDRom by a regular Jehovah's Witness poster to that board.
'Much has been written about the name of God in the Bible and there are 'sacred name' groups which are at pains to discover the correct pronunciation of a name which stopped being pronounced more than 2,000 years ago by the Jewish people for fear of breaking the 3rd commandment.
Biblical Hebrew being consonantal supported by an oral tradition, it relied on that oral tradition in order to preserve the name of God. Without the continued oral expression of the 'name', despite the efforts of many to establish its correct pronunciation, reliance on 4 letters alone (tetragrammaton) has caused problems, despite 'clues' from other words which include part of that name, and other linguistic indications.
If we think of a name which has 4 consonants, the second and fourth being the same, such as MaRJoRie, then remove the vowels, we can see how the problem developed.
MRJR is certainly not Marjorie's name, and without consistent pronunciation of the name 'Marjorie', in the absence of any other record of the whole name, the original pronunciation could quite possibly be lost. Then take a couple of words which you are allowed to use in place of the name 'Marjorie' - say daughter and grandmother - then put the vowels of those names above or below the 4 consonants:
a u e
M R J R
a o eso that whenever you come to read MRJR, you actually say daughter or grandmother. And then 12 centuries or so later (maybe earlier?), someone believes that the vowels that appear from the name daughter, are actually the vowels which make up the whole name, thus producing the name MaRuJeR. But then the letter M is represented by the letter N in the language of translation and the letter J is represented by the letter Y, and so the name NaRuYeR becomes Marjorie's name and it is then transferred as nearly as possible to this deduced name, into other languages. The name Marjorie represented graphically as MRJR has disappeared and the hybrid name Naruyer replaces it.
In this way, we have moved from YHVH in Hebrew via medieval Latin Iehouah, Iehoua to Jehovah. However, when Jehovah was first used, the letter J was probably pronounced as a Y and the letter V as a W - so the pronunciation of what was written as Jehovah would have actually been Yehowah.
After the exile in 6th century BC, and more generally from the 3rd century BC, YHVH stopped being vocalised except on the Day of Atonement in the High Priest's blessing.
It has been stated on here that (cut and paste from CDRom): >whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read Isaiah 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he would have pronounced the divine name. This can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-John 17:6, 26. >
I would suggest that the fact that Jesus was not immediately thrown out of the Synagogue after reading from Isaiah would provide strong evidence that Jesus did not, in fact, pronounce the 'name' at that time. (Sotah 7, 6) Sanhedrin 7, 5, records that a blasphemer was not guilty unless he pronounced the 'Name' - but Luke tells us 4 v 22 'And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.' At that point, not the reaction of a crowd who had just witnessed blasphemy I would have thought. They were later enraged, however, when Jesus made claims that caused them offence - but not at the point when Jesus had just finished reading from the Scriptures.
Was Jesus reading in Hebrew, Greek or even Aramaic? Did Jesus keep faithfully to the text? If we look at what He said, although septuagintal in character, it does not match it exactly and it has elements of the Masoretic Text. Also the majority of the Septuagint texts which we have do not in fact contain the Tetragrammaton, so we do not know whether the 'name' appeared in the scroll from which Jesus was reading.
To pass from the statement that Jesus would have pronounced God's name without any evidence for this, but rather, I would suggest, with evidence to the contrary, to:
"he would have pronounced the divine name. This can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-Joh 17:6, 26."
is therefore problematical. A conclusion is being based on an unsupported premise.
If Jesus had 'pronounced' God's name, why is the pronunciation of that name so difficult to recover? Even if the Jewish converts were loathe to pronounce the name, would this have stopped the Gentile converts? We know that Christianity started with an oral tradition, so surely this would have preserved that name?
In considering the beginning of the Lord's prayer, 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name', why is the actual name of God omitted? If Jesus had used that name, wouldn't it have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Lord's prayer if not in the texts? Wasn't this an ideal opportunity for the name of God to be 'called upon'? But instead, Jesus begins with 'Our Father in Heaven' as opposed to beginning with YHVH - and then states 'hallowed be thy name'. Would this indicate the possibility that Jesus, in accordance with the customs of the day, acknowledges the sanctity of the name of God, attributes holiness to it, but fails to vocalise it?
And at John 17 vv 6 and 26, (cut and pastefrom the CDRom): 'I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world' and 'I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them'.
How did Jesus make known/manifest God's name? Did He pronounce the name of God, or did He come to make known God's love as that of a Father? Have we moved from a more 'remote' deity in the Old Testament whose 'personal' name had ceased to be pronounced by the Jews, to a deeper understanding of God in the New Testament based on Jesus' promotion of God as 'Father', enabling a more 'personal' relationship? This is just one aspect - there are other points here - but this is already getting lengthy!
The name of Yehoshua (Jesus) is YHVH's salvation. He 'personified' YHVH's salvation' and He has made 'known' YHVH's relationship to man, and by His sacrifice on the cross, will (v 26) further make known YHVH's name - i.e. His provision for salvation through Yehoshua. When Jesus leaves the disciples to ascend to Heaven, the second 'witness' will be sent - the Holy Spirit - the spirit of truth.
I don't see v 26 speaking about YHVH's literal name, for if it did, the future 'making known' does not make sense imo.
And moving on to the preaching of the Gospel, if we look at the Acts
of the Apostles, whose is the name:which is called upon (Acts 9 vv 14, 21);
healed by (Acts 3 vv 6, 16; 4 vv 10, 30);
saved by (Acts 4 v 12; 10 v 43; 22 v 16);
baptised in (Acts 2 v 38; 8 v 16);
taught and preached in (Acts 4 v 18; 5 v 28; 8 v 12);
spoken in (Acts 4 v 17; 9 vv 27, 29);
suffered for (Acts 5 v 41; 9 v 16; 15 v 26);
forgiven through (Acts 10 v 43);
borne before the nations (Acts 9 v 15);
called or designated by (Acts 11 v 26)?It is the name of Yehoshua - YHVH's salvation. The 2 names are bound together and embedded in each other. (But it is this recurrence of 'in Jesus' name' which has resulted in the formation of the 'Jesus Only' Pentecostal group (which numbers about 6 million I think I read somewhere....) - have been having a long discussion with a member of this group).
So where does that leave us in relation to 'knowing' or using the 'name'? As Christians -
Should we adopt the name 'Yahweh' which, as a name can be used by speakers of any language, and which seems to be the name favoured by the majority of scholars, but which may not be 100% accurate in its pronunciation (Yahowah being another possibility)?
Do we reject the pronunciation 'Yahweh' on the grounds that it also sounds very like the ablative form of the noun Jupiter?
Should we use the name 'Jehovah', a name 'accidentally' applied by a 13th century Spanish monk through an error in understanding of the vowel pointings added to the Tetragrammaton, but which is a name that english speakers are familiar with and recognise as applying to God, though it is not His name?
Do we reject that name because of the unpleasant connotations of the word 'hovah' in Hebrew?
Should we use our own language versions of the words 'God' or 'Lord' as did the Jews as we are no longer certain of the pronunciation of 'YHVH' and God would understand anyway?
Should we call on 'Our Father' as Jesus suggested in the Lord's Prayer?
For me, if we knew exactly the pronunciation of God's name, I would favour its inclusion in the Old Testament, in its original form with footnotes/explanations. Without that knowledge we are left with the decision either to include a hybrid name or to translate with a 'title'. Most translators opt for the latter course using the Septuagint as a precedent and also following the practice of the Jewish people.
With the New Testament, we encounter difficulties where many passages quoted from the Old Testament are septuagintal in character. This has implications from a translation view point - do you include in the translation, YHVH, which does not appear in the manuscripts from which you are translating on the basis that 'it should have done' or might have done? Clearly the WBTS would say 'yes'; orthodox translators generally maintain not.
Most orthodox translations do not include 'YHVH'. The WBTS includes, however, the hybrid name 'Jehovah'. This name is included due to 'familiarity' with this name in the English language, despite knowledge that it is not in fact God's name. There are a few occasions where 'Jehovah' is not added, however, in the NWT New Testament where the Old Testament passage would suggest that it should be (scholars have suggested examples such as Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philemon 2:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; and Revelation 22:21), and these are instances where an inclusion might compromise the Christology of the WBTS.
Orthodox Christianity and the WBTS suggest 'theological' bias in the translation of the Bible on the part of the other. As the 2 groups hold to different Christological views and are responsible for their own translations, inevitably this leads to conflict between the two groups in areas where translation from the Greek leads to 'interpretation'.
Orthodox Christianity which calls on great scholarship from Greek experts in their Biblical translation looks askance at the NWT which was produced by an 'anonymous' group of 6 men from the WBTS, whose identities once made known by a former member of the organisation, indicated that only one member had any knowledge of Greek (2 years) and was self taught in Hebrew. Some scholars are highly critical of the translation which it claims fails to recognise the 'nuances' of the languages translated and which is also inconsistent in applying some of the self set translation rules which it originally claimed.
Meanwhile the WBTS considers that there is theological bias in orthodox translation due to exposure to accepted ideas about doctrinal issues - the Christological view being one of the main areas where they see a problem. They consider that the traditional Churches are in error and that there has been 'apostasy' from the original message, and that they alone have the 'truth'.'
I have heard Jehovah's Witnesses state that the omission of the divine name from the Bible is blasphemy.
I have also read the opinions of orthodox Jews who consider that the *distortion* and acknowledged inaccuracy of G*d's name as represented by the WTBTS is blasphemy.
Agreeing with Metatron's last point :o) and adding - even had the Tetragrammaton been replicated graphically in the written *books* of the New Testament, there is absolutely no evidence from the oral tradition that the divine name was vocalised by Jesus, Paul, the disciples or anyone else as far as I am aware. Had it been vocalised, surely there would not be the lengthy and scholarly and not so scholarly debates which continue to this day, for the pronunciation of the name, being so important - the name of God, would have been preserved for us.
Hope that this helps you bchapp :o)
-
129
MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse
by silentlambs init appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.
the federal law child abuse prevention and treatment act (capta)(jan. 1996 version), 42 u.s.c.
failure to report can result in civil liability.
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
I don't know if this question has ever been asked or if such a situation has ever arisen, but I was wondering what would be the reaction of the elders and their *advised* course of action if approached by a member or child who had been abused by a *worldly* person or a member of *Christendom* - a Catholic priest, for example?
A *questions from readers* article on the subject might be interesting:
'What should you do if you suspect that your child has been subjected to *forceful sexual interference* by someone outside the congregation - a schoolteacher, a music teacher a sports coach etc?'
'How should you prepare your child for the possibility that he/she may at some point in their life be vulnerable to inappropriate approaches or activities by an adult in authority?'
etc etc!
{{{{{{{to all those who have been subjected to any such activity}}}}}}
-
7
WTBTS OFFICIAL BLOOD SITE UK-GONE?
by anglise inon the back of a glossy leaflet put out by the liason committee in the uk is a web address [email protected].. this leaflet is designed to help medical staff care for jw's and one assumes that the site was also a back-up to that.. so if the loving organization cares sooo much where has this site gone and why no links to a new one if it has been replaced?.
does anyone know anything about this?
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
Please feel free to use my posting in any way that might be productive in facilitating changes in either the reporting of paedophilia or reviewing the blood doctrine :o)
I feel strongly about both issues having - sadly - unsought experience of child molesters and haemorrhaging patients!
-
7
WTBTS OFFICIAL BLOOD SITE UK-GONE?
by anglise inon the back of a glossy leaflet put out by the liason committee in the uk is a web address [email protected].. this leaflet is designed to help medical staff care for jw's and one assumes that the site was also a back-up to that.. so if the loving organization cares sooo much where has this site gone and why no links to a new one if it has been replaced?.
does anyone know anything about this?
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
Having looked at the site which sf indicated, I read down to section 2.4 and was forcibly struck by the wording here!
The 'Management of Anaesthesia for Jehovah's Witnesses' states:
'2.4 Administration of blood to a competent patient against their will and in conflict with their genuinely held beliefs has been likened by the Witnesses to rape. It will not result in expulsion from the community if it was carried out against the express wishes of the patient, but may have as deep a psychological effect as forceful sexual interference.'
Now to an outsider I perceive *double standards* at work here.
What does the WTBTS do in order to uphold their *no blood doctrine* on behalf of members? They go to court; they appeal; they spend a lot of money *defending* the illogical doctrine which they have *developed*. Jehovah's Witnesses have been *taught* that accepting blood is on a par with rape or *forceful sexual interference* and thus *blood treatment* is viewed with abhorrence.
Yet what of those innocent victims amongst its membership who have been raped or subjected to *forceful sexual interference* by other members of the group - *carried out against the express wishes of the* victim and the *deep psychological effect* which results from such an experience - no, not one experience - these dreadful crimes against the innocent are repeated and repeated - they are rarely *one offs*?
What resources has the WTBTS harnessed in order to protect these *innocents* in advance, in the way that they do for possible blood treatments?
Where are the role playing family models with the stock answers? Where are the leaflets with advice?
Where are the Liaison Committees working with the victims of the *forceful sexual interference* helping them deal with the *deep psychological effects*?
Where is the financial support of the victims if they wish to take their case through the courts?
Where is the emotional support for and counsel of these innocents?
Is there not a serious discrepancy here?
So when the WTBTS says that an enforced blood treatment is tantamount to *forceful sexual interference*, would it be fair to say that an examination of its actions/advice in relation to each of these scenarios, rather than what is said, would be a fair indicator of the *actual* weight given to each?
-
12
The Watchtower *trinity*
by ChristianObserver inas a relative newcomer, i don't know whether anyone has ever made this observation before - so apologies if they have.. one of the main areas of disagreement between jehovah's witnesses and orthodox christians is the 'trinity'.. to an outsider (i.e.
christian - not a jehovah's witness), the organisation has their own *trinity* which has replaced the orthodox 'trinity' of father, son and holy spirit.. the command at .
matthew 28 v 19 - 20: 'go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you: and, lo, i am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world.
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
As a relative newcomer, I don't know whether anyone has ever made this observation before - so apologies if they have.
One of the main areas of disagreement between Jehovah's Witnesses and orthodox Christians is the 'Trinity'.
To an outsider (i.e. Christian - not a Jehovah's Witness), the organisation has their own *trinity* which has replaced the orthodox 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The command at
Matthew 28 v 19 - 20: 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen'
appears to have been 'modified' by the organisation in relation to their understanding of *baptism as one of Jehovah's Witnesses*.I would suggest that the organisational *trinity* (a concept vehemently opposed by the organisation as having its roots in paganism etc) consists of the following:
Jehovah (God and Father)
WTBTS (God's channel of communication and the *mother* -see publications)
Jesus (archangel Michael and the Son)The Holy Spirit seems to me to have been demoted to a place *outside* this trinity - it is seen as *God's impersonal force* and therefore not on a par with the *trinity family* of the organisation, where the organisation takes the place of *mother* - the one who nurtures and *raises* the *offspring* paying attention to whether *milk* or *strong meat* is suitable as the spiritual food at any given time. Can any Jehovah's Witness justify this 'scripturally'?
Whilst criticising the Roman Catholics on account of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the *organisation* appears to have formed a *trinity* with its auto-biographical representation of itself in the maternal role.
Hmm..........!
Can anyone kindly explain to me where the Holy Spirit figures in WTBTS theology - especially in relation to the *anointed class*?
With thanks :o)
-
37
Jesus - Michael or God?
by Dawn ini've been researching this issue for myself - it's a doctrine i was still having problems understanding - is he or isn't he.... i came across a couple of interesting scriptures that i had not noticed before so thought i'd share them with ya'll:.
1) genesis 1:26 - then god said, "let us make man in our image..." i was taught as a jw that god was speaking to jesus (michael) here.
if that's true, and jesus/michael is an angel - that would mean that god created angels in his image also (since i refers to "image" as singular - it doesn't say images).
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :o)
Is Jesus the archangel Michael as claimed by the WTBTS?
There is an inherent problem in the WTBTS claim imo, that Jesus is *the* archangel. If He is the ONLY archangel, why do we read at Daniel 10 v 13: But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
An examination of the Hebrew, the Greek of the LXX at this point, comparison with the use of 'archangel' in the New Testament Greek, comprehension/knowledge of the use of the prefix 'arche'in Greek and consideration of the development of angelology (new light!) in the inter-testamental period are all pertinent to this discussion.
One of the arguments that I have seen for Jesus being *the* archangel as cut and pasted from the CD Rom is that *archangel* only appears in the singular in the New Testament.
So let's consider another noun which appears solely in the singular in the New Testament and with the same frequency as *archangel* i.e. twice - 'oinopotes' for example. Does this mean that there can only be one drunkard......? Hmm......! Methinks not!
And so to the prefix 'arche' as an explanation used by the WTBTS of the *singularity* of *archangel*.
Going back to the Daniel passage above, what is the Greek used in the Septuagint for prince? *Archon* - and Michael is *one* of the chief princes..... hmmm!!!
If we consider the use of the word *archangel* in the Bible - the term does not appear at all in the Old Testament. Chief princes - 'archon' - (Michael is included as one of them, so this would indicate that there are others...) - appears to be the preferred description in the Old Testament. In the New Testament - the word *archangel* appears but twice.Jude 1 v 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you (NWT version - 'Jehovah rebuke you' - yet if we compare this passage with Jesus' temptation in the widerness, Jesus does rebuke the devil forcefully - He dared to do it (NWT - 'Jehovah rebuke you') whereas Michael 'dare not do it'.)
At this point, *archangel* is of necessity singular anyway as it is describing only one 'archangel'. Moreover, it is a reference to a passage from The Assumption of Moses - a non-canonical book.
The other occasion is at 1 Thessalonians 4 v 16: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.
This usage does not necessarily imply solely one archangel - 3 poetic singulars for literary effect not being the least of the explanations.
The description of Gabriel at Luke 1 v 19: And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God - has lead to an understanding of Gabriel being an archangel which ties in with apocryphal and inter-testamental literature of the time. Britannica suggests the existence of 7 archangels and there was a belief that those angels who 'stand in the presence of God' are the archangels.
Gabriel, Michael and Raphael (accompanies Tobias in Tobit) are all archangels in Jewish tradition.
Hebrews addresses the issues arising from the development of angelology in the inter-testamental period, and imo, refutes the idea of Jesus being merely an angel or messenger, albeit of the highest order, viz *an* archangel. We have moved from the sending of messengers (angels) and the choosing of prophets to the sending of the *Son* with God's absolute authority (cf the parable of the master sending his servants and then his son told by Jesus).
Jesus' very name is embedded in God's name (whereas Michael means 'who is like *el*? - not *Yahweh* as in Jesus' name - but 'el' from 'elohim' - subtle but importance difference when examined in the original language, which is not brought out in the English translations) and Yahweh's name is embedded in Jesus' name. Yahweh/Yahashua (I am that I am's salvation).
I have read that Seventh Day Adventists consider that Jesus is a *divine* archangel Michael and Mormons that Adam is Michael.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is Michael or an archangel, so relying on 'sola scriptura' the WTBTS claim cannot be substantiated imo. There are numerous references though to the 'sharing' of attributes by God and Jesus and the application of various scriptures to each of them.
So setting aside *sola scriptura* (after all oral tradition was very important to the Jews and early Christians), when considering Jewish tradition, deutero-canonical books and inter-testamental writing, the existence of more than one archangel is indicated which rather throws cold water on the *only one archangel* theory - again imo!
But then a major difference between the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and orthodox Christians is the Christological view held by each group.
Hope this helps Dawn :o)
-
7
Blood Issue: Misleading Insertion - Awake 22 Feb
by ChristianObserver infor anyone interested, dr ross mcl wilson, chairman, nsw council on quality in health care (australia) has been contacted regarding the *misleading insertion* in the february 22nd, 2002, of awake where a sydney morning herald article about a blood audit in 10 new south wales hospitals was *selectively edited* by the organisation, thereby allowing misinterpretation by readers in order to 'bolster' the blood ban.. .
dr wilson responded (in part) as follows:.
"the quotation is clearly unhelpful and wrong - the combination of the media and then a special interest group puts the truth at risk.
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello SixofNine :o)
There are a couple of threads running on this - one started in February and another in March - but I only had limited time and could not find them when I glanced down the sections!
The following is a copy of the original article by Judith Whelan in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16th June, 2001 for which a link was posted in the first thread:
Doctors give `dangerous' transfusions
Doctors continued giving blood transfusions to patients after being told they did not need the treatment and that it could kill them, an expert on hospital safety has revealed.
Dr Ross Wilson, head of the NSW Council for Quality in Health Care, said the cases showed it was not enough to merely tell medical staff how they needed to change their practices. ``It's a bit like getting a ticket from a speed camera it won't stop you from going out and speeding again," he said.
Last year, a team directed by Dr Wilson carried out an audit of blood use in 10 NSW hospitals. It found that one in three transfusions were being administered when, under NSW Health guidelines, they should not have been.
The guidelines call for a blood transfusion if the patient's haemoglobin level is seven or below. One should not be given if the level is 10 or above. (A healthy male's haemoglobin level is about 14 to 16, a woman's 12 to 15.) ``In the middle is a grey area where clinical judgment should be used," Dr Wilson said. Giving an unnecessary transfusion could kill a patient by inducing heart failure, he said. It could also transmit viruses, or there was a risk of the donor blood being incompatible with the recipient's.
Dr Wilson suggested that other checks and balances be introduced into the hospital system, such as doctors being asked to fill out forms that reinforce transfusion guidelines or double-check their requests for transfusions in computerised links to the blood supply service.
Such changes would be likely to be opposed by doctors, on the grounds that they would interfere with their ability to make clinical judgments about their patients.
The audit results were made public in January, and the researchers told the doctors of the results. But when they took another audit a month later, the results were the same; the doctors had not changed their practices. ``I have no reason to expect they'd be any different now," Dr Wilson said. Doctors were not deliberately endangering patients' lives, he said. ``There are some practitioners who think increasing the haemoglobin level of patients increases the safety of patient care."
He said the study showed that ``new change strategies" had to be introduced to decrease the risk of mistakes being made. For instance, the best-practice guidelines could be included on the form doctors filled out to request a blood transfusion, or computer systems could be linked to the blood bank so that guidelines could be cross-checked with the transfusion request.
Dr Wilson said: ``Ultimately, and this is the method I prefer, patients would be informed about it so they could question their physician directly." That might include fact sheets being given to them or their families, he said.
Six years ago Dr Wilson co-authored the study Quality in Australian Health Care, which found that about 18,000 people a year died as a result of complications they developed directly as a result of the medical treatment they received.
The following is a copy of the first posting made to the board highlighting the way the article had been *selectively edited* and also showing how the concluding sentence of the the SMH article was moved within the body of the text by the organisation, thus giving a misleading impression to readers:
Misleading insertion.In the 2-22-02 Awake magazine with the cover title “How Safe are you at Work?” has an interesting article under Watching the world.Blood Transfusion Dangers
“One in three transfusions were being administered when, under [New South Wales] Health guidelines, they should not have been,” reports Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald. “The guidelines call for a blood transfusion if the patient’s haemoglobin level is seven or below.” Dr. Ross Wilson, who conducted the study on blood use, explained that “giving an unnecessary transfusion could kill a patient by inducing heart failure.”This next sentence is the one which has been unnecessarily moved out of context to give an impression that the large number of deaths were blood related (which is not at all the case!) <According to a study that Dr. Wilson conducted six years earlier, “about 18,000 [Australians] a year died as a result of complications they developed directly as a result of the medical treatment they received.” >
Dr. Wilson recommends that doctors be reminded of the blood transfusion health guidelines each time they request a transfusion and also that patients be informed about the guidelines so they can question their physician directly.The Awake article has been further *selectively edited* and has appeared on the net with quotation marks to indicate that the Awake article is in fact a direct quotation from the SMH (which it is not) and it has then been used as a basis for the following erroneous assumptions:
"As previously mentioned on these boards the above would confirm that statistically more people die as a direct result of receiving blood transfusions than from refusing them. These deaths could have been prevented by applying the principles found in the Bible.
It is very rare for anyone to die as a result of refusal of blood.
Actually statistically more people die as a direct result of blood transfusion complications and I have on several occasions posted information to this effect."Hope that helps :o) Maybe someone has the links to the other 2 threads running on this - maybe....
-
116
WHAT ABOUT THE STUMBLING BLOCKS?
by You Know inthe underlying assumption of the apostasy is that if the watchtower falls short to a significant degree then it cannot be jehovahs organization.
thats why apostates are hopeful that if enough fault can be found with the organization and brought to the attention of the faithful, then they too will accept the conclusion that jehovahs witnesses are not who we say we are.
unquestionably, many have been stumbled over a multitude of stumbling blocks.
-
-
ChristianObserver
Hello YouKnow :o)
May I ask whether you could clarify your understanding of *Christendom* for me please?
[You mentioned it in one of your postings here: "Christendom hasn't a clue what the kingdom is"]
Thanks :o)