Posts by Earnest

44

A book on the pronunciation of God's Name

by Doug Mason in

i am neither recommending nor rejecting the following book.

i am simply saying that i stumbled across it.

i have neither read it nor studied it.. search with: the name of god y.eh.ow.ah which is pronounced as it is written i eh ou ah its story gérard gertoux .

Earnest

Thanks for your comments, peacefulpete,

It has already been discussed on this forum that copies of the Septuagint prior to the second century CE do not translate the tetragrammaton with Kyrios ("Lord"). Likewise, while there is evidence that some regarded the divine name as too sacred to pronounce prior to the second century, the fact that a Greek version of the name (Iao) was in use at the time of Christ indicates it was still in regular use.

Regarding the Karaites, the same Wikipedia article you quoted from says :

According to Mordecai ben Nissan, the ancestors of the Karaites was a group called Benei Ṣedeq during the Second Temple period. Historians have argued over whether Karaism has a direct connection to the Sadducees, dating back to the end of the Second Temple period (70 CE), or whether Karaism represents a novel emergence of similar views.

Whether Karaism as a movement arose in the seventh century, or existed in one form or another since the destruction of the second temple, it remains true that they were still using the divine name in the tenth century CE.

While rabbinic Judaism with its emphasis on oral tradition was the prime successor to what had existed before destruction of the second temple, there would have been many from other groups who retained their identity and were not bound by rabbinic tradition. These would include the predecessors of the Karaites.

44

A book on the pronunciation of God's Name

by Doug Mason in

i am neither recommending nor rejecting the following book.

i am simply saying that i stumbled across it.

i have neither read it nor studied it.. search with: the name of god y.eh.ow.ah which is pronounced as it is written i eh ou ah its story gérard gertoux .

Earnest

It is worth noting that it was specifically the rabbinical Jews who stopped pronouncing the divine name after the destruction of the second temple. The Karaites continued to use the divine name right up to the tenth century CE and even today. These were the Massoretes responsible for the writing of the Leningrad codex which is the primary basis for the Old Testament we now use.

15

The myth, lie that Christendom has hid Gods name, all of these Centuries.

by smiddy3 in

it has been well documented that jehovah`s witnesses have long claimed that christendom has hidden the name of god for centuries.. and that they alone have restored that name in the last century,.

making it known in all of the earth for a witness.. nothing could be further from the truth .. 1.justus martinus a 13th century spanish monk took the four hebrew letters of the tetragrammaton for gods name and added vowels to those consonants and came up with hebrew letters to english jhvh and the vowels he added e o a. which amounted to jehovah ,remember this was in the thirteenth century by a spanish catholic monk.. 2.this name persisted throughout the centuries to this day ,in many so of christendoms writings etc,etc.. 3.churches of christendoms religions throughout the world have the name jehovah in stone on them engraved since that 13th century .

4.in the 1970`s if i remember correctly their was an international convention held around the world in which the jw`s released a publication of the conventions and the churches of christendom to the delegates showing these churches many of which had the name jehovah engraved in stone on them.......centuries old churches.

Earnest

Regarding the avoidance of God's name within Christendom, it should be mentioned that a letter of June 29, 2008 was sent to Catholic bishops conferences around the world from the Vatican's top liturgical body, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, by an explicit "directive" of Pope Benedict XVI.

In this letter it concluded that the following directives are to be observed :

1) In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton is neither to be used or pronounced.
2) For the translation of the Biblical text in modern languages, destined for the liturgical usage of the Church, what is already prescribed by n. 41 of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is to be followed; that is, the divine tetragrammaton is to be rendered by the equivalent of Adonai / Kyrios. "Lord", "Signore", "Seigneur", "Herr", "Senor", etc.
3) In translating, in the liturgical context, texts in which are present, one after the other, either the Hebrew term Adonai or the tetragrammaton YHWH, Adonai is to be translated "Lord" and the form "God" is to be used for the tetragrammaton YHWH, similar to what happens in the Greek translation of the Septuagint and in the Latin translation of the Vulgate.

Note 41 (c) of the Liturgiam authenticam says :

in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned "Septuagint" version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus [Lord], is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

81

Evolution or Creation Poll

by Vanderhoven7 in

evolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..

Earnest

I agree that was quote-mining, I was not previously familiar with that particular article although I was familiar with horizontal gene transfer and its implications.

The point I am making is not that the general principle of evolution is false, but that there is room for different views and that your insistence that it is your way or the highway is not compatible with the scientific method.

It is one thing to argue your case which you have done very thoroughly with your series on evolution, it is an altogether different thing to say that those who do not share your conclusions cannot be honest or objective.

81

Evolution or Creation Poll

by Vanderhoven7 in

evolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..

Earnest

The principle that everything evolved from a single common ancestor is based on genetics, the vertical transmission of DNA from parent to offspring. However, in the journal Trends in Genetics it discusses the effects of horizontal gene transfer. In the abstract it says :

Simulations of genes and organismal lineages suggest that there was no single common ancestor that contained all the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history that traces back to an individual molecular cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms and at different times.

81

Evolution or Creation Poll

by Vanderhoven7 in

evolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..

Earnest

cofty : Who has studied the scientific evidence for evolution - NOT from critical sources - and concluded that evolution is false who is not a theist?

That was not my assertion. My assertion was that there are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours. The fact that a person is a theist does not preclude him from being honest and objective.

81

Evolution or Creation Poll

by Vanderhoven7 in

evolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..

Earnest

cofty : ...there is no comparison in intellectual rigour and honesty between creationists who reject evolution, despite admitting never having read a single science book in their entire lives, and [those] who have done the work and follow the evidence.

On that we agree, although we do not necessarily agree where the evidence leads.

However, what I was asserting was that not everyone who maintains all species evolved from a single cell are motivated by an honest, objective consideration of the facts. Many accept evolution because others do, not because they have investigated the matter for themselves.

My objection to your statement was that it was so sweeping, that everyone who did not accept all species evolved from a single cell had not done the work or followed the evidence. There are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours.

81

Evolution or Creation Poll

by Vanderhoven7 in

evolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..

Earnest

What I find most interesting about this poll is that almost 31% of those who have voted believe in "special creation". I would not have expected so high a number based on participation in the many threads on the subject of evolution.

I think the assertion that those who deny all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years are "not motivated by an honest and objective consideration of the facts" is far too sweeping. The same could be said of those who maintain all species evolved from a single cell and would be just as true.

It would be interesting to have polls on other matters so people can express their honest views without having to identify themselves and be subject to opprobrium.

6

Separate Identity vol 2

by vienne in

the afterword to volume 2, complete in rough draft is here https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ impressions?.

Earnest

I enjoyed the details regarding pyramidology and speculation around 1881. It is particularly useful to understand what was going on in the prophetic milieu of the time.

I appreciate this is a rough draft, but as an earnest pedant I hope these suggested corrections will assist:

Martin misrepresents Russell ... He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he sites [should be cites] as is the belief...

Holland believed that Christians should assist God in such fulfillments. His theology took maters [should be matters] beyond mere obedience to political action,...

In the hands of Millennilists [should be Millennialists], Age-to-Come believers, and Adventists, “present truth” always meant their end-times teachings.

This left some wiggle-room. [You might mean wiggle-room, but in the context I think you probably mean wriggle-room].

Verse seventeen says the living Saints will meet [omit] will be caught away in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Writers from The Restitution speculated on the supposed perihelion of planets, taking the mater [should be matter] seriously.

Published under two titles, the one noted by Barbour was Star Prophecies, or a View of Coming Disasters on the Earth from1881 [should be from 1881] to 1885,

As far as we can determin [should be determine], the Watch Tower message entered Australia in1881 [should be in 1881]...

Newspapers of the period note numerous lectures on the topic by clergymen, self-anointed [should this not be self-appointed ?] and real professors...

Watch Tower and Barbourite belief may seem strange from out [should be our] vantage point...

Though the Mother Shipton prophecy was an admitted contemporary fake, it panicked some in Brittan [should be Britain].

Some of this spilled onto Zion’s Watch Tower, though Russell expect [should be expected] other events and on a different basis.

In some respects we find Russell as [should be at] his most ‘unlovely’ with this failure.

18

Is this really what happens?

by Theonlyoneleft in

hello guys,.

long time no see.

the other day i went out with my sister.

Earnest

Often when Witnesses meet others they don't know they might ask what congregation you are from. It's just a Witness way of asking where are you from? The Witness world can be quite small and there is a chance he might know someone in your congregation or circuit. That forms a basis for conversation, you immediately have something in common.

He could have been asking are you one of us or one of them, but quite possibly he just didn't want to go into Witness-speak without knowing whether you believed or not. However, if that was the motive for his question I think he should have asked you and not your sister, but some people have no etiquette.