Posts by SimonSays

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

SimonSays

For those of us that got side tracked from the question of Palms 83:18,the concept for the name of God is linked in http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm to offer a different perspective from the Judeo-Christian faith, since it is detailed.

Ancient Latin alphabet

The earliest known inscriptions in the Latin alphabet date from the 6th century BC. It was adapted from the Etruscan alphabet during the 7th century BC. The letters Y and Z were taken from the Greek alphabet to write Greek loan words. Other letters were added from time to time as the Latin alphabet was adapted for other languages.

Roman alphabet for Latin

The letters J, U and W were added to the alphabet at a later stage to write languages other than Latin. J is a variant of I, U is a variant of V, and W was introduced as a 'double-v' to make a distinction between the sounds we know as 'v' and 'w' which was unnecessary in Latin such as in double “U”

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

SimonSays

I make no distinction from comments. My observations or opinion are no greater than those that have been submitted here. The submission of the phase original scrolls logically subscribe to it being handed down through generations. Only time will tell how well the word of God was preserved from ancient times.

The conclusion of the Jewish people is that they were no longer the chosen people since Jesus had now included everyone who would accept him as the chosen Savior, i.e. Gentiles, Jews, Pagans, Romans, etc. How and Why we have this confusion is, as you stated the lack of understanding scripture such as 1 john 2:22, Acts 13:50, Acts 12:1, Matthew 26. All this actions were perpetrated by the Jewish people back then, remember Judas, nothing was made up. It is a written account that has nothing to do With the 1939 Germans anti semitic views or rewritten to make the Jewish people look bad. There’s no conspiracy as you suggest. Buy the way Jw’s were also included in the holocaust. Yet this has been the view of the Jewish nation to heighten their purpose as being the only chosen people while rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made for us all. That’s why the Pharisees rejected the concept and is being rejected now as Christianity becomes irrelevant to those that don’t believe in God the Father (YHWH) the Son in English (JESUS). The New Covenant holds a greater purpose which includes the Mosaic Law.

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

SimonSays

The research is there for people to decide. It depends on how people interpret scripture verses understanding it. Some of which would not have anything to do with preserving God’s name. There are several reasons the Jewish people didn’t use God’s name back then after it was used before. One example was because the Pharisees considered it sacrilege to mention it as they held the Mosaic Law above everything else including the new covenant that Jesus brought forth. The New Covenant dismissed many of the teachings of the old ways which the Pharisees rejected. Another was the fear of using God’s name for those that converted to Christianity not to be prosecuted by the Romans. That’s why we have the modern YHWH in the O.T. and transferred to Greek around the turn of the century. After that it was lost for a very long time until Scholars and theologians reintroduced it after reading the original scrolls that were hand down in time.

The Gospel of Matthew. Context REST FOR THE WEARY

Matthew 11:27

26"Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in your sight. 27"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28"Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Context: THE GREAT COMMISSION

Matthew 28:19 New International Version (NIV)

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel of Timothy. Context: GRACE AND PERSEVERANCE

2 Timothy 2:2

1”You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2”The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3”Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

SimonSays

Would this point of view be as a Sadducees or Pharisees by which Jesus was in constant conflict with them? That’s why the Jews are no longer the chosen people for killing Jesus for attempting to teach the people the true form of God’s laws and ways by confusing or misinterpreting Gods laws to benefit only themselves not the people, one of many would be the personal name of God.

The Sadducees: During the time of Christ and the New Testament era, the Sadducees were aristocrats. They tended to be wealthy and held powerful positions, including that of chief priests and high priest, and they held the majority of the 70 seats of the ruling council called the Sanhedrin. They worked hard to keep the peace by agreeing with the decisions of Rome (Israel at this time was under Roman control), and they seemed to be more concerned with politics than religion. Because they were accommodating to Rome and were the wealthy upper class, they did not relate well to the common man, nor did the common man hold them in high opinion. The common man related better to those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. Though the Sadducees held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin, history indicates that much of the time they had to go along with the ideas of the Pharisaic minority, because the Pharisees were popular with the masses.

Religiously, the Sadducees were more conservative in one main area of doctrine. The Pharisees gave oral tradition equal authority to the written Word of God, while the Sadducees considered only the written Word to be from God. The Sadducees preserved the authority of the written Word of God, especially the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). While they could be commended for this, they definitely were not perfect in their doctrinal views. The following is a brief list of beliefs they held that contradict Scripture:

1. they were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God's involvement in everyday life.

2. They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Acts 23:8).

3. They denied any afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death, and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life.

4. They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).

Because the Sadducees were more concerned with politics than religion, they were unconcerned with Jesus until they became afraid He might bring unwanted Roman attention. It was at this point that the Sadducees and Pharisees united and conspired to put Christ to death (John 11:48-50; Mark 14:53; 15:1). Other mentions of the Sadducees are found in Acts 4:1 and Acts 5:17, and the Sadducees are implicated in the death of James by the historian Josephus (Acts 12:1-2).

The Sadducees ceased to exist in A.D. 70. Since this party existed because of their political and priestly ties, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the Sadducees were also destroyed.

The Pharisees: In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were mostly middle-class businessmen, and therefore were in contact with the common man. The Pharisees were held in much higher esteem by the common man than the Sadducees. Though they were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests, they seemed to control the decision making of the Sanhedrin far more than the Sadducees did, again because they had the support of the people.

Religiously, they accepted the written Word as inspired by God. At the time of Christ's earthly ministry, this would have been what our Old Testament is now. But they also gave equal authority to oral tradition and attempted to defend this position by saying it went all the way back to Moses. Evolving over the centuries, these traditions added to God's Word, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2), and the Pharisees sought to strictly obey these traditions along with the Old Testament. The Gospels abound with examples of the Pharisees treating these traditions as equal to God's Word (Matthew 9:14; 15:1-9; 23:5; 23:16, 23, Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:42). However, they did remain true to God's Word in reference to certain other important doctrines. In contrast to the Sadducees, they believed the following:

1. they believed that God controlled all things, yet decisions made by individuals also contributed to the course of a person's life.

2. They believed in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6).

3. They believed in an afterlife, with appropriate reward and punishment on an individual basis.

4. They believed in the existence of angels and demons (Acts 23:8).

Though the Pharisees were rivals of the Sadducees, they managed to set aside their differences on one occasion—the trial of Christ. It was at this point that the Sadducees and Pharisees united to put Christ to death (Mark 14:53; 15:1; John 11:48-50).

While the Sadducees ceased to exist after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Pharisees, who were more concerned with religion than politics, continued to exist. In fact, the Pharisees were against the rebellion that brought on Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70, and they were the first to make peace with the Romans afterward. The Pharisees were also responsible for the compilation of the Mishnah, an important document with reference to the continuation of Judaism beyond the destruction of the temple.

Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees earned numerous rebukes from Jesus. Perhaps the best lesson we can learn from the Pharisees and Sadducees is to not be like them. Unlike the Sadducees, we are to believe everything the Bible says, including the miraculous and the afterlife. Unlike the Pharisees, we are not to treat traditions as having equal authority as Scripture, and we are not to allow our relationship with God to be reduced to a legalistic list of rules and rituals.

13

Scripture Challenge: Theists, atheist, anti-theists, absentheists, satan worshippers whoever can help...

by freemindfade in

can anyone give me one or more scriptures in the first 5 books of the bible that would describe yhwh the tribal desert god as loving, kind, merciful, etc?...

and by loving i don't mean, "in order to release all the jews from slavery god @$$blasted the egyptians with ten plagues because he was so loving to his chosen race"..

SimonSays

That depends in what you mean by loving god. Also there were no Jews in the first books of the bible. The first 5 books also known as the Torah means instruction and offers a way of life for those who follow it. They were Hebrews, Israelites which gradually disappeared after the separation of the tribes later on. The Torah is books of laws, and it wasn’t meant to choose people but rather follow a blood line in which ultimately Jesus was part of.

While people look at the first five books as inhuman, it shaped the survivors of the flood into seeing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob having loving traits, but could also be stern.

Some people call this, prominence of the theme of blessing and cursing. For obedience and faith, there is blessing as in the Garden of Eden, but for disobedience, there is cursing as in the flood.

So the first five books of the Bible are sometimes called the Pentateuch demonstrated God's holiness, and taught them how to love God. That’s how theology looks at it in many different ways.

19

My first "disagreement" with standard JW thinking

by TTATT_Paladin in

about two years after i was baptized, i had this incident.

i looked at it as an isolated incident at the time, but now realize it would have had basically the same result with 99.99% of any jws not members here.. i will keep it short.

i was talking with a person who was raised in the religion.

SimonSays

So it will most likely go back to just the seasons of Seedtime and harvest which are divided into 3 equal seasons of 4 months or divide seedtime and harvest by 2 by which the planting would be longer than the harvest. The research is there to compare. This is why the bible doesn’t use the year to mark an event. To God, time is irrelevant, and certainly nothing to argue about.

The alternative would be 4 seasons divided by 3:

Tishri (October)
Tevet (January)
Nissan (April)
Tammuz (July)

In Israel the yearly cycle with its four seasons are not as clearly marked as the lands to the north of it. To ancient Israel, every season was a special time and a reminder of the promises of God, as He said to Noah "seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter" (Genesis 8: 22). Though the Bible specifically mentions summer, winter, spring and autumn, it may come as a surprise to know that the Bible never mentions four seasons, but only two. The Hebrew word "stav", translated today as autumn, is mentioned only once in the Bible in the Song of Solomon: "for lo, the winter is passed, the rain is over and gone..." (Song 2:11), "stav" really speaks of the time of the winter rains. The Hebrew word "Aviv", translated today as spring is mentioned twice in the Bible, both referring to a stage in the ripening of barley rather than a season. The month of Aviv (hodesh ha'aviv) is the time when this ripening of barley takes place, this is of course the Hebrew month of Nissan. There is no mention of a season called spring anywhere in the Bible. Therefore we must conclude that the Bible only recognizes two seasons, summer and winter, or as the writers of the Talmud put it, "the days of sun" and "the days of rain."

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

SimonSays

So if the Encyclopedia Britannica

Yahweh

the God of the Israelites, his name being revealed to Moses as four Hebrew CONSONANTS (YHWH) CALLED THE TETRAGRAMMATON. AFTER THE EXILE (6TH CENTURY BC), and especially from the 3rd century BC on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman world, the more common noun Elohim, meaning "god," tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel's God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai ("My Lord"), which was translated as Kyrios ("Lord") in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.

And according to Jeroen Ashton

In 1278 a Spanish monk, Raymundo Martini, wrote the Latin work PUGIO FIDEI (Dagger of faith). In it he used the name of God, spelling it Yohoua. Later printings of this work, dated some centuries later, used the spelling JEHOVA.

Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled VICTORIA PORCHETI AVERSUS IMPIOS HEBRAEOS (Porchetus' Victory against the Ungodly Hebrews). He spells God's name IOHOUAH, IOHOUA and IHOUAH.

Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus, a Catholic priest born in the late 1400's, published a work entitled DE ARCANIS CATHOLICAE VERITATIS (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spelled God's name IEHOUA.

Now, the direct answer to your question: the name "Jehovah" first appeared in an English BIBLE in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible). In this, he included the name of God, usually spelled IEHOUAH, in several verses (Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:6; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23; Deuteronomy 3:24. Tyndale also included God's name in Ezekiel 18:23 and 36:23 in his translations that were added at the end of THE NEW TESTAMENT, Antwerp, 1534), and in a note in this edition he wrote: "Iehovah is God's name... moreover as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) is is in Hebrew Iehovah." (Please note as I told you previously, there was no "J" in English at this time; the J is a product of a stylized I; thus giving us the current Jehovah rather than the Old English Iehovah. The "u" used in the above names is also a reminder that there was no "v" in Old English, as you can read David in the original King James version was written "Dauid".)

In 1534 Martin Luther published his complete translation of the Bible in German, based on the original languages. While he used the German "Herr" (Lord or Sir) for the Tetragrammaton, in a sermon which he delivered in 1526 on Jeremiah 23:1-8, he said, "The name Jehovah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God."

Subsequently, Jehovah was used not only in the "Authorized" King James Version of 1611, but the Spanish VALERA version of 1602, the Portuguese ALMEIDA version of 1681, the German ELBERFELDER version of 1871, and the American Standard Version of 1901. It appears that the Jerusalem Bible was the first one to used Yahweh instead of Lord and Jehovah.

The Masoretic, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai ("Lord", editor) or Elohim ("God", editor). Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) (emphasis ours, ed.) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th century’s biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used a form like Yahweh, and this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Other Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh.

Hence forth the name kept by the Watchtower. So the ignorance and falsehood would be within the scholars, and theologians that ratified it, way before Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Even though there were and are many Gods, there was and is only one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So then yes it would be befitting to use the personal name of God to have that personal relationship with those who believe in him, verses just seeing him as an object to those of use that don’t.

Moreover, my confusion is with other religions that profess to be Christians and are here ridiculing another Christian sect. I don’t believe that will fare well being all saintly in one hand, and the devils mouth peace in the other. I mean if your quest is for the truth, then seek the truth and then be truthful about it. No judgment that’s up to God for the believers, just an observation.

33

Evidence for an Egyptian Presence In Early PalestineEgyptian Artifacts Salvaged from Robbed Tomb in Israel

by fulltimestudent in

i've posted evidence elsewhere indicating that ancient israel was at times part of the egyptian empire.

that means that the exodus documents incorporated into the old testament, is a mythical story.

the israelites did not leave egypt.

SimonSays

I believe you just answered the point I was making. Science and archeology are refutable. The contradictions among their own scholars make that argument not the bible. So once again, unless you’re stating you were there, it’s all a hypothesis. What you might call fake, might be someone’s reality. That’s why it’s never good to judge people on your own preconceived notions. An opinion is just an opinion, rather it’s mine or yours, there’s no greater value on each. Enjoy your theories.

33

Evidence for an Egyptian Presence In Early PalestineEgyptian Artifacts Salvaged from Robbed Tomb in Israel

by fulltimestudent in

i've posted evidence elsewhere indicating that ancient israel was at times part of the egyptian empire.

that means that the exodus documents incorporated into the old testament, is a mythical story.

the israelites did not leave egypt.

SimonSays

http://www.donotlink.com/framed?575965

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels_3.html

So for us skeptics, how would you join that vast amount of archeological evidence to prove biblical events? Also depending on which linguistic scholar you speak with, the presumption on the Sea of Reed has been refuted by their own scholars, and archeology.

Although I cannot answer why they have not displayed their finding in a museum. That answer is best left to the curator of the museum of that region.

Another misconception is, which Pharaoh ruled in the Exodus account. For decades it was thought that Ramses II was it as indicated by the timeline below. However a closer look at that century has reviled it was Thutmoses III. Well everything is a hypothesis unless someone was there or proven otherwise by sold archeology.

Pharaoh of Moses' flight to Midian: Thutmoses II/Hatshepsut: 1498-1485 BC
Pharaoh of the Exodus: Thutmoses III: 1485/1464 - 1431 BC

1759 BC: The fall of the Middle Kingdom leads to the 2nd Intermediate period, and the occupation of northern Egypt by the Hyksos

1539 BC: The reunification of Egypt and the expulsion of the Hyksos begins the New Kingdom, a period when Egypt became a leading power in the Middle East

1446 BC: The Exodus Begins (Exodus 13-18)

1344-1328 BC: The pharaoh Akhenaton carries out a short-lived religious reformation

1336-1327 BC: Tutankhamen reigns

1279-1213 BC: The reign of Ramses II brings Egypt to the height of its power (incorrect)

33

Evidence for an Egyptian Presence In Early PalestineEgyptian Artifacts Salvaged from Robbed Tomb in Israel

by fulltimestudent in

i've posted evidence elsewhere indicating that ancient israel was at times part of the egyptian empire.

that means that the exodus documents incorporated into the old testament, is a mythical story.

the israelites did not leave egypt.

SimonSays

Good information.

The Tell El-Amarna Letters by Percy Handcock published in 1920. It describes the findings. However it is no new light, Perhaps this discoveries were accumulated by the travels in the Kings road that passed through many kingdoms by the Egyptians that controlled much of the northwestern province. This however does not exclude the exodus as archeology has since then found Egyptian chariot wheel frames in the ocean floor in the red sea.