Simon: Ask yourself: if they do that when surrounded by people, with cameras ... what do they do in private? How many victims?
Right on!
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
13
Dalai Lama asking boy to suck his tongue after kissing the child on his lips.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe dalai lama has apologised after footage showed him asking a boy if he wanted to suck the tibetan spiritual leader's tongue.. .
his office said he wanted to apologise to the child and his family "for the hurt his words may have caused".. .
the video also shows the dalai lama kissing the child on his lips.. soon after the pope alleged peodo activity .
-
-
Wonderment
-
18
Silicon Valley Bank bankruptcy....
by mikeflood indidn't know silicon valley bank was so important for start-ups....now there's some sort of contagion, people taking their money from regional banks to the big banks.
.
system seems pretty resilient and different from 2008. thoughts?.
-
-
Wonderment
Country leaders ( Including USA) keep telling us that their bank systems are safe and sound. It seems that this is based on the confidence in the bank system that they continually promote. But how could this be? Will banks have the deposits to give back when a majority of depositors rush to pull their monies in a moment of financial panic?
No. Banks in many countries are only required to keep a small amount of cash for normal daily activities (Ref.: "Bank, or Cash Reserve Ratio"). What happened to SVB in USA can happen again anywhere around the world, including to large banks.
Wikipedia defines "Reserve Ratio" thus: "Reserve requirements are central bank regulations that set the minimum amount that a commercial bank must hold in liquid assets. This minimum amount, commonly referred to as the commercial bank's reserve, is generally determined by the central bank on the basis of a specified proportion of deposit liabilities of the bank. This rate is commonly referred to as the reserve ratio."
Reserve requirements by country
The reserve ratios set in each country and district vary.[18] The following list is non-exhaustive:
Country or district Reserve ratio (%) Notes Australia None . Statutory reserve deposits abolished in 1988, replaced with 1% non-callable deposits[16] Bangladesh 6.00 Raised from 5.50, effective from 15 December 2010 Brazil 21.00 Term deposits have a 33% RRR and savings accounts a 20% ratio.[19] Bulgaria 10.00 Banks shall maintain minimum required reserves to the amount of 10% of the deposit base (effective from 1 December 2008) with two exceptions (effective from 1 January 2009): 1. on funds attracted by banks from abroad: 5%; 2. on funds attracted from state and local government budgets: 0%.[20] Burundi 8.50 Chile 4.50 China 17.00 China cut bank reserves again to counter slowdown as of 29 February 2016.[21] Costa Rica 15.00 Croatia 9.00 Down from 12%, from 10 April 2020[22] Czech Republic 2.00 Since 7 October 2009 Eurozone 1.00 Effective 18 January 2012.[23] Down from 2% between January 1999 and January 2012. Ghana 9.00 Hong Kong None [13] Hungary 2.00 Since November 2008 Iceland 2.00 [24] India 3.00 27 March 2020, as per RBI.[25] Israel 6.00 set by the Monetary Committee of the Bank of Israel.[26] Jordan 8.00 Latvia 3.00 Just after the Parex Bank bailout (24.12.2008), Latvian Central Bank
decreased the RRR from 7% (?) down to 3%[27]Lebanon 30.00 [28] Lithuania 6.00 Malawi 15.00 Mexico 10.50 Nepal 6.00 From 20 July 2014 (for commercial banks)[29] New Zealand None 1985[30] Nigeria 27.50 Raised from 22.50, effective from January 2020[31] Pakistan 5.00 Since 1 November 2008 Poland 3.50 Since 31 March 2022[32] Romania 8.00 As of 24 May 2015 for lei. 10% for foreign currency as of 24 October 2016.[33] Russia 4.00 Effective 1 April 2011, up from 2.5% in January 2011.[34] South Africa 2.50 Sri Lanka 8.00 With effect from 29 April 2011. 8% of total rupee deposit liabilities. Suriname 25.00 Down from 27%, effective 1 January 2007[35] Sweden None Effective 1 April 1994[36] Switzerland 2.50 Taiwan 7.00 [37] Tajikistan 20.00 Turkey 8.50 Since 19 February 2013 United States None The Federal Reserve reduced reserve requirement ratios to 0% effective on March 26, 2020.[38] Zambia 8.00 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
Also: https://www.centralbanknews.info/p/reserve-ratios.html
-
16
My favorite Cooking Pot
by Wonderment inalthough cooking pots are not directly "religious" subject, perhaps not many will deny that a happy belly can lead to wholesome religious thoughts and peaceful spiritual discussions.. that said, through the years i have tried most major brands of cooking pots - all the way from all-clad to cast-iron skilets - including some with the most extraordinary claims in between.. however, the one we have used the most in our kitchen is one brand from denmark, specifically, the 5 quart pot called "scanpan.
" it is now approaching 40 years of daily use, and it has held-up surprisingly well.
the handles are as tight as day one when we bought it.
-
-
Wonderment
Although Cooking Pots are not directly "religious" subject, perhaps not many will deny that a happy belly can lead to wholesome religious thoughts and peaceful spiritual discussions.
That said, through the years I have tried most major brands of cooking pots - all the way from All-Clad to Cast-Iron Skilets - including some with the most extraordinary claims in between.
However, the one we have used the most in our kitchen is one brand from Denmark, specifically, the 5 quart pot called "Scanpan." It is now approaching 40 years of daily use, and it has held-up surprisingly well. The handles are as tight as day one when we bought it. It cooks well overall.
I don't believe Scanpan will win a number one prize for Stick-Free cooking, however, in our experience it is not difficult to clean well. Minor scraping may be necessary in some situations.
I wonder what kind of experiences you guys have had in this space. Anyone willing to share opinions?
-
11
Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the NT
by Wonderment inone of the first prayers that many people learn is the lord’s prayer, which jesus taught his followers.
this prayer is found in what is commonly called the new testament.
the prayer begins: “our father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (matthew 6:9) yet, god’s name, rendered in english as “jehovah” or sometimes “yahweh,” is rarely found in english translations of the new testament.
-
-
Wonderment
**Article taken from jw.org (11/24/22)**
Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the New Testament
One of the first prayers that many people learn is the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught his followers. This prayer is found in what is commonly called the New Testament. The prayer begins: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (Matthew 6:9) Yet, God’s name, rendered in English as “Jehovah” or sometimes “Yahweh,” is rarely found in English translations of the New Testament. These translations do, however, include the names of false gods, such as Zeus, Hermes, and Artemis. So should they not mention the name of the true God and Author of the Bible?—Acts 14:12; 19:35; 2 Timothy 3:16.
The New Testament names several false gods, so would you not expect it to name the true God as well?
The English Bible translators Lancelot Shadwell and Frederick Parker believed that God’s name should be restored to the New Testament. Why use the word “restored”? Because they concluded that God’s name was there originally but was later taken out. Why did they draw that conclusion?
Shadwell and Parker knew that existing manuscripts of what is often called the Old Testament, originally written mainly in Hebrew, include God’s personal name thousands of times. So they wondered why the New Testament manuscripts available to them omitted the full form of God’s name. a Also, Shadwell noticed that when New Testament manuscripts use common Old Testament expressions, such as “the angel of Jehovah,” copyists of the Greek New Testament had evidently replaced God’s name with terms like Kyʹri·os, which means “Lord.”—2 Kings 1:3, 15; Acts 12:23.
God’s name in Hebrew
Even before Shadwell and Parker published their English translations, other translators had restored God’s name to their English translations of the New Testament, but only in relatively few places. b Prior to 1863, when Parker published A Literal Translation of the New Testament, no English translator is known to have restored God’s name extensively in a published New Testament. Who were Lancelot Shadwell and Frederick Parker?
Lancelot Shadwell
Lancelot Shadwell (1808-1861) was a barrister and the son of Sir Lancelot Shadwell, the vice-chancellor of England. The son belonged to the Church of England. Although he believed in the Trinity, he showed respect for God’s name, describing it as “the glorious name of JEHOVAH.” In his translation, The Gospels of Matthew, and of Mark, he used “Jehovah” 28 times in the main text and 465 times in the accompanying notes.
Shadwell may have learned about God’s name by seeing it in the Old Testament in the original Hebrew. He stated that those who had replaced God’s name with the term Kyʹri·os in the Greek translation of the Old Testament “were not honest translators.”
The Gospel according to Matthew rendered into English with notes, by L. Shadwell (1859), provided by the Bodleian Libraries. Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 UK. Modified: Text highlighted
Shadwell’s translation showing Matthew 1:20
In his translation, Shadwell first used “Jehovah” at Matthew 1:20. His note for that verse says: “The word [Kyʹri·os] in this, and in many other passages in [the] N.T. means JEHOVAH, the proper name of God: and it is most important to restore this word to the English translation.” He also stated: “The honour of God requires it. He has declared himself by the name of JEHOVAH: and we cannot do better than use that name when we speak of him.” He then said: “In our E.V. [Established, Authorized, or King James Version] of the Bible, the name of JEHOVAH rarely occurs . . . Instead of the proper name of God, we read, The Lord.” Shadwell claimed: “The Lord . . . is a most unworthy title” to use as a substitute for God’s name, adding that even he is called “The Lord” at his manor, or country home.
“[God] has declared himself by the name of JEHOVAH: and we cannot do better than use that name when we speak of him.”—Lancelot Shadwell
Shadwell published his translation of Matthew in 1859 and his combined version of Matthew and Mark in 1861. But then his work came to an end. He died on January 11, 1861, at the age of 52. Nevertheless, his efforts were not in vain.
Frederick Parker
Shadwell’s translation of Matthew came to the attention of a wealthy London businessman named Frederick Parker (1804-1888), who set out to translate the New Testament when he was about 20 years of age. Unlike Shadwell, Parker rejected the teaching of the Trinity. He wrote: “[May] the whole Church of [God’s] dear Son . . . heartily embrace the truth . . . and worship the one Almighty Jehovah.” Parker also felt that New Testament manuscripts that use Kyʹri·os for both the Lord God and the Lord Jesus obscured the distinction between the two. So he was intrigued to see that in certain contexts Shadwell rendered Kyʹri·os as “Jehovah.”
How did Parker understand such matters? He studied Greek and wrote several books and tracts on Greek grammar. He also became a member of the Anglo-Biblical Institute, which promoted research into Bible manuscripts with a view to producing better English Bibles. In 1842, Parker began publishing his first translation of the New Testament in several parts and editions. c
A translation of the New Testament by Parker (Heinfetter)
Parker’s Efforts to Restore God’s Name
For some years Parker had written regarding such questions as: “When does Kyʹri·os refer to the Lord Jesus, and when does it refer to the Lord God?” “Why is Kyʹri·os often used grammatically as a name and not as a title?”
When Parker saw Shadwell’s 1859 translation of Matthew with its comments on Kyʹri·os, he became convinced that in certain contexts, Kyʹri·os “should be translated Jehovah.” So he revised his entire translation of the New Testament to include “Jehovah” wherever he believed that the context or grammar of the Greek text indicated it. Thus, Parker’s one-volume 1863 edition of A Literal Translation of the New Testament contains God’s name 187 times in the main text. As far as is known, this is the first published English version to use the divine name throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. d
Title page of Parker’s 1864 translation of the New Testament
In 1864, Parker also released A Collation of an English Version of the New Testament . . . With the Authorized English Version. His reason for combining the two New Testaments into one volume was to show where and how his version differed from the other. e
To illustrate the value of restoring God’s name, Parker pointed to a number of verses in the Authorized Version, including Romans 10:13, which reads: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Parker asked: “[Who] ever gathered from the Authorized English Version of these Verses, that it was Jehovah, and not The Son Jesus Christ our Lord, . . . referred to in them”?
Romans 10:13 in the King James Version (top) and Parker’s 1864 translation
Parker spent thousands of pounds—a fortune back then—on publishing and advertising his tracts, papers, and other writings. In fact, in just one year, he spent 800 pounds, which is equivalent to over 100,000 British pounds ($132,000 U.S.) today. He also sent complimentary copies of many of his publications to acquaintances and high-ranking clergy for their review.
Parker’s writings and his translations of the New Testament, which had a very limited printing, were ridiculed by some scholars. In doing so, however, they drew attention away from the sincere effort that he, as well as Shadwell and others, had made to restore God’s personal name to the English New Testament.
You may also like to watch the informative ten-minute video: Warwick Museum Tours: “The Bible and the Divine Name.”
The translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures also have deep respect for God’s name. If you would like to learn more about why the divine name should be included in the entire Bible, read Appendixes A4, A5, and C1 in The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition).
a “Jah,” a shortened form of “Jehovah,” is found at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6 in the expression “Hallelujah,” which means “Praise Jah, you people!”
b Shadwell did not translate the complete New Testament. The other translators include Philip Doddridge, Edward Harwood, William Newcome, Edgar Taylor, and Gilbert Wakefield.
c In order to separate his business interests from his Biblical scholarship, Parker used the pen name Herman Heinfetter in his religious writings and Bible translations. This name appears a number of times in the appendixes of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
d In 1864, Parker released An English Version of the New Testament that uses God’s name 186 times.
e Prior to Parker’s translations, many Hebrew translations of the New Testament included God’s name in various verses. Also, in 1795, Johann Jakob Stolz published a German translation that uses God’s name more than 90 times from Matthew to Jude.
**Article taken from jw.org (11/24/22)**
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Wonderment
NewLight99: Wonderment stated that other organisations couldn’t keep up with the 200 languages that WT have translated the Bible into. In fact the entire Bible has been translated into well over 700 languages and the NT into well over 2000!
True, but these versions have been done by different individuals or entities throughout the last few centuries, not by ONE single religious entity during a timeframe of 7 decades, as is the case with the NWT.
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Wonderment
Slim,
I think יְהֹוָה would be pronounced YehoVAH, with the emphasis on the last syllable.
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Wonderment
KalebOutWest: The Jehovah's Witnesses making a New World Translation in Hebrew is the most stupid thing I ever heard of in my life. It is an entire Bible, not just New Testament--it contains the Hebrew canon--in modern Hebrew...The New World Translation in Hebrew (at least its "Hebrew Scripture" section) is an idiotic misunderstanding. And it is a cultural insult. Again, we are dealing with idiots--people who have no academic background, who think only in two dimensions, according to one cultural standard that we must all adjust to.
Welcome Kaleb!
I have to disagree with you on this one!
First, JWs are not the only ones trying to produce a modern Hebrew Bible. There are others. Why? Because modern Jews are finding it more difficult to understand ancient Hebrew as the modern language is changing with the times. If it was "idiotic" to have a modern Hebrew Bible, why are others trying so hard to produce one?
You wrote: "cultural insult? Again, we are dealing with idiots--people who have no academic background"
Why don't you ask JWs over there in Israel if there is any problem for them to carry around a modern Hebrew Bible? Besides JWs, some Jews may welcome such noble effort.
As to having no academic background, why don't you reveal for us the names of the translators (of the new committee) of the Revised NWT, and the names of the translators of the new Hebrew translation? I mean, if you are willing to put people down for their efforts, you must have something to offer which I don't have.
Why don't you write to famed Hebrew professor emeritus Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein what he thinks of the NWT? I would not be surprised if he disagrees with you also.
And lastly, with all the criticisms the NW translators receive, we could humbly acknowledge they have accomplished what no one else has done on earth, produce a Bible translation in over 200 different languages. Other corporations with more money and more academic titles have not been able to keep-up with these "idiots." Why?
-
25
God Has Only One Visible Organization on Earth!
by Vanderhoven7 inwhy is it important to some that god only have one visible organization to represent him on earth?
why is it important to jehovah's witnesses that people recognize their organization as such?
what makes a witness more moral or righteous or save-worthy if they accept that it is his one and only organization?
-
-
Wonderment
TonusOH: If God is within reach to me, why would I depend on someone else to act as a middle man? Too many religions treat God as if he was a CEO, needing intermediaries at every step of the way, keeping the little people from ever even catching a glimpse of him. No no no! I have a direct line. Step aside, please.
Funny and poignant!
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Wonderment
DATA-DOG: That being said, there is no “J” in Hebrew, so God’s name sure as shit isn’t Jehovah….
...Or, Jaakobah, Jaala, Jacob, Jannes, Jael, Jairus, Jambres, Jehoshua, Jehu, Jephtah, Joshua, Jeremiah, Jericho, Jerusalem, Jeshua, Jesus, Jezreel, Joel, Jonah, Jonathan, and a host of other Bible names.
Most people are not willing to change these names, even those knowing what you just expressed, so they stick with the traditional names, although they are not exact representations of the original names.
-
31
How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1
by Vanderhoven7 insomething does not compute.
you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.
isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.
-
-
Wonderment
sloppyjoe2:
"The verse I don't believe any JW could defend nor even know is how the word "other" was added to Colossians 1:16"
Three months ago I submitted this:
As I stated before in this thread, the words "all" and "everything" in the description of creation by John, Colossians & Hebrews must be logically understood in a relative manner, since Paul indicated: the Christ is seated at the right hand of God. (Col 3.1) What's the point of Paul calling attention of the Colossians to the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of God, if he was the Ultimate Creator, the Almighty God?
Furthermore, the use of the words of "all" and "everything" in the description of creation by John, Colossians & Hebrews goes hand-in-hand with the way we moderns use these words in our everyday lives. Ex., "the Church leaders took all the children to the city park." Does "all" here indicate that all the children of the city (or of the whole country or the world) went to the city park? Or more likely, that children associated with this Church went to the park? Context is everything.
Today, I will add a few texts to the subject:
Romans 3:23 says literally, "All [pan'tes] have sinned." Does this statement include the God above, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels? Obviously not! Exclusion in action!
Colossians 1:20, “And through him God reconciled everything [or, all things - ta pan'ta] to himself." Were Satan and his followers included in this 'reconciliation'? No! Exclusion in action!
Most relevant of all is the fact that Paul himself indicated that the Greek expression [all things] does not include God:
" Now when it says that "everything" [or, all things] has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [or, all things, ta pan'ta] under Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:27, NIV)
