moggy lover

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 797 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by moggy lover

• 
  39

  Is Gods correct name pronounced Jehovah?? What about the messiahs name?

  by evergreen in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i thought i would ask this question as i have been reading some fascinating information on some other sites as to the correct pronunciation of gods real name?

  also for that matter, i ask what jesus proper pronounced name is?.

  if you go to another country and tell people your name and instead of calling you your name as you pronounced it, they automatically transliterate it into their own language and call you by the name thay have transliterated it in to; would that annoy you after awhile?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Our current understanding of the pronunciation of Hebrew names in the OT is almost totally dependant on the exacting and exhaustive work employed by the Masoretes, [Jewish scholars living between 500 - 1000 AD] who went to extraordinary lengths to supply the vowel equivalents required for these names. Rendering these same names into regional and national nominatives has been made possible only insofar as our dependance on the massoretes is accepted.

  Hence "Ezekiel" "Jeremiah" etc, thanks to the endeavours of the Massoretes, are not figments or randomized collections of sounds, but represent, in as accurate a form as is possible, the names of the persons involved.

  However, one name did elude the Massoretes. The Tetragrammaton, YHVH. In this place the Massoretes utilized the vowels for the Hebrew "Adohnai" the intention being, not to combine the consonants of YHVH with the vowels of "Adohnai" thus creating a hybrid or mongrelized sound meaning neither, but simply to accept that "Adohnai" was what intended to be pronounced. It would be doing an injustice to the Massoretes, and misunderstanding their intentions by pronouncing the Tetragrammaton in ways other than their prescription. We cannot accept their scholarasticism in all the other names in the OT yet deny their authority in this one word, simply because we choose to disagree with them. It was not some sort of "Jewish tradition" that led the Masoretes to do this, but a devout understanding of the sacredness of the Divine Name.

  The point is that YHVH is unpronouceable. In our attempts to articulate the unpronounceable we are forced, like the Massoretes, to employ "surrogates" What seems to escape the dogmatism of the WTS, is that "jehovah" is a surrogate, as much a surrogate as "LORD" is, or "Yahweh" and no more represents the "name" of God than these substitutes. If the WTS accepts the integrity of the NT text, as they so deceitfully claim, then they would be forced to admit that The Holy Spirit Himself accepted the use of "Lord" as a perfectly acceptable equivalent for the OT YHVH

  Does the WTS seriously believe that using the term "Father" ensures an ignoring of Divine attention, without the repetitive use of "jehovah"?

  Leolaia - Would it be possible for you to post the articles you mentioned earlier,[the ones written by Rutherford and Franz] or are they copyrighted or something. They would be most interesting to study

  Cheers
• 
  11

  Heaven....

  by Honesty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some common perceptions of heaven include the following: .

  heaven is not a real or literal place.

  when a person dies and goes to heaven, he/she becomes an angel with wings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hi, Honesty, since you asked for the Bible's perspective on what constitutes heaven well, for better or worse, [I can only provide the Evangelical point of view - there are minor variants of the following] here it is:

  1 Heaven is a created reality beyond the matrix of the earth.[Gen 1:1] In the Bible, the expression "Heaven and earth" circumscribes the entire creation, the whole cosmos, what we may term "the Universe"

  2 In a way that is not detailed in the Bible, God dwells there, though He does not need heaven as a spatial unit in which to exist. Because God is infinite, and self-existent, He exits continuously in a realm which includes heaven and earth and which is beyond human capacities to comprehend. "Place" is an accommodation of God to His finite creatures.Thus, God Himself transcends both heaven and earth.

  3 Whereas we are of the earth, the Bible also reveals that there is within the human species a spiritual potential that yields to a heavenly need. Man was not designed to live on physical realities only, but to respond to a deeper, more potentially glorious destiny that is intuitively beyond the carnal and material.

  4 Unlike in Plato, which describes "heaven" as a place in which naked minds will intellectually contemplate the eternal world of unchanging ideas, the Bible reveals that the whole person of the "redeemed" survives. Even the body is raised again, to be transformed to that which Christ now possesses. Evidently not made up of flesh and blood, since this kind of body does not exist in heaven, it is "changed" as Paul describes it, [1Cor 15:50] to conform to heavenly patterns. This resurrection body is composed of flesh and spirit, not flesh and blood. It is this dynamic that gives the resurrection body such power which is beyond physical comprehension.

  5 Christ the first to possess such a body, could appear and disappear at will, He did not need to travel, ie "Move" through space He simply WAS. One moment He was on Mt Carmel the next, millions of miles away in heaven. The Bible does not explain how this was done, only that it was.This eventuality is the promise given to believers, those who are "in Christ" [not those who are in the RC church or the Baptist church etc] and is certainly not restricted to simply 144,000.[ 2Cor 5:1] The resurrection body which Paul described as being "glorious" cannot be defined within human limitations.

  6 No details are presribed as to heavenly existence, beyond the fact that physical distinctions which make up the pattern of earthly life, will be abolished. There will be neither male nor female [Yup- no sex you carnal heathens], nor black nor white. Evidently in a reality that sees even the suspension of time, there will be no concept of ''Age" or "Aging"

  7 There are things that the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, that God has prepared for those who love Him. [1Cor 2:9] The obsenity of the WTS is to restrict those who "love" God to the 144000

  Cheers
• 
  13

  A "spirit-directed" post - what's your favorite....

  by serendipity in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm posting under the influence of distilled spirits and was wondering:.

  what's your favorite kind of booze?

  i like frou frou mixed drinks like frozen margaritas and pina coladas.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Serendipity, talking of quotes here's one from the archives of my distoted imagination:

  A drunk lurches up to the bar and tells one of the "ladies of the night" : "Hey, wanna screw?"

  She replies: "Wellll..... you talked me into it you eloquent silver tongued devil you"

  Boom Boom

  Cheers
• 
  90

  i have a question

  by brandon_the many in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  would the passage from new world translation be a miss print....because in the holy bible the word is god......so if god is not capitalized..then what god is the book referring to...because there is only one father and one living god witch is jesus...... .

  please help me , because this has been puzzling me...... .

  new world translation of the holy scriptures new world translation of the holy scriptures .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  In my opinion a good illustration would go something like this:

  "Linda was with John Smith and Linda was a Smith"

  As can be seen, the final clause, while identifying "Linda" as someone who shares a commonality with "John Smith" ie the concept of being "Smith", nevertheless, she is also clearly not being identified as the same PERSON as ''John Smith"

  Whatever the meaning of the word "Smith" [and it clearly means a surname] in that sentence, the imposition of an indefinite article does not create a shift in MEANING regarding the word Smith,[Linda is a Smith in the same meaning as John Smith] the shift is in a nuance of expression.

  I believe John, at Jo 1:1 is agruing against such teachings as Sabellianism, or Modalism, which saw the Word and the Father as the one and the same Person, he is not arguing against any concept that would be construed as bestowing Deity on the Word

  Cheers
• 
  13

  A "spirit-directed" post - what's your favorite....

  by serendipity in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm posting under the influence of distilled spirits and was wondering:.

  what's your favorite kind of booze?

  i like frou frou mixed drinks like frozen margaritas and pina coladas.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  My Gawd!! You are a bit of a wino are'nt cha?

  <<Sigh>> And I used to fantasize about you.........

  Anyway... nothing comes between an Aussie and his beer.

  Cheers
• 
  90

  i have a question

  by brandon_the many in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  would the passage from new world translation be a miss print....because in the holy bible the word is god......so if god is not capitalized..then what god is the book referring to...because there is only one father and one living god witch is jesus...... .

  please help me , because this has been puzzling me...... .

  new world translation of the holy scriptures new world translation of the holy scriptures .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  According to Watchtower theology, the word "God" in Jo1:1 does not necessarily refer to the One we recognize as the Supreme Being

  In clause 2, the word refers to the person we recognize as "deity" - "God"

  In clause 3, however, evidently because of the absence of the definite article, [THE] they argue that the word "God" undergoes a shift in meaning, making it mean "A mighty one"

  So, in effect, the WTS says that Jo is saying: "The Word was with God, and the Word was a mighty one"

  Most scholars who have commented on this verse do not recognize this distinction, and have shown, with some justfication, that the WTS is inconsistent in the applyng of this explanation.

  For a review of the JW position you might log onto the official WT web site, where you will be able to read a brochure on the Trinity online.

  For an alternative point of view you could log onto Forananswer.com, or www.bible.ca/trinity.com

  Cheers
• 
  10

  Why Publishers.

  by vomit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  why are baptized and unbaptized refered to as being publishers?

  .

  since they neither publish,print or edit the magazines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Dunno.

  Maybe Freddy Franz wanted something that rhymed with "Rubbisher"

  Cheers
• 
  80

  Unclebruce..can we start over?

  by mentalist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just give me an unreserved apology and im sure we can be friends.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  My neighbour has a very beautiful ass, if you must know.

  Her arse is'nt bad either.

  Cheers
• 
  10

  Attitudes of JCs

  by rhian in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i just finished reading crisis of conscience.

  i had read half of it but never finished; something i read on this forum prompted me to pick it up & finish it.. my question is this: i'm curious, for those who have had experience with judicial committees, what has been the prevailing attitude?

  franz wrote about the lack of brotherly love in both the committees at hq in ny and in the cong in alabama.. i've had two experiences; won't go into the details for the sake of brevity.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  I suppose most elders are shortsighted, well-meaning men, who, being theologically inert, still presume to stand for what they have predetirmined are "righteous principles" During the time that I served as an elder [75-84] I had the misfortune to serve on at least five JCs and none were exactly uplifting experiences

  Before we would meet with the "subject" we would get together first. We would "pray" then cast around the Bible trying to find some "principle" that would fit the situation. Usually we found none, and thus had to rely on some relevant WT presentation. The supposed goal of the entire excercise was bring the person to ''repentance'' but it is only in retrospect that I can see that in reality it was to intimidate and force a rigid compliance to an established fiat.

  I would like to believe that at least while I served on these committees, that we gave a fair hearing to the accused. However, there were occassions where a somewhat forceful elder would turn the procedure into a starchamber event. To my shame, I would have to admit, that rather than show any dissent I would comply with the majority decision even if I felt it wrong.

  I have often wished that I could apologize to these half-forgotten memories, because they were real people, in real life emotional situations, and who were seeking solace, but instead were subjected to brutal, unbridaled exercises of pwer

  Cheers
• 
  80

  Unclebruce..can we start over?

  by mentalist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just give me an unreserved apology and im sure we can be friends.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hey! I just thought of sumthin' Mebbe just mebbe we should'nt win too many more gold medals at the Comm games and show up the Poms.

  Tony Blair may just invade us instead of Wherever

  Suppose we could tell 'im we already speak the lingo Thank u very much.

  Cheers