does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
SweetBabyCheezits:
With all due respect. I am curious.
I have one question to ask you. Have you yourself actually and in truth read for yourself the accounts written in Bible about how wicked the Egyptians and the inhabitants of Canaan were?
That's my question. Thank you.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you have peace!.
as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the fine shepherd, the holy one of israel and holy spirit, jaheshua mischajah.
over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name.
Dearest AGuest: May Jah bless and the Christ shine upon you.
No, our Lord has not told me this about the long letter "S." Because I am a calligrapher, I have studied letter forms and scripts in order to learn how to create them myself. In that learning, I have studied with some of the world's well-renowned scribes and calligraphers and "master penmen" and "master penwomen." It one of my joys in life. Anyway, it has been through studying with them and reading such subjects that I learned about letters of many kinds. My favorites are Spencerian Script, Copperplate script, and Gothic Blackletter. While I do do other scripts, those are my favorite to create.
While I did mean to be thorough, I also meant to be accurate, as there is so much inaccuracy on this Board as to be astounding.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you have peace!.
as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the fine shepherd, the holy one of israel and holy spirit, jaheshua mischajah.
over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name.
NVL, you wrote:
“The letter f also looked like as s long ago. . . .”
You are much mistaken, NVL. The letter “F” NEVER looked like an “S”—ever. It was the OTHER WAY ROUND. It was t he long, medial or descendings (?) that was a form of the minuscule letter s formerly used where s occurred in the middle or at the beginning of a word, for example ?infulne?s ("sinfulness"). The modern letterform was called the terminal or short s.
The questions marks in the text below were supposed to be images of the long "s."
Yes, indeed, check out Wikipedia to see the photos! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
Check out the italicized long s used in the word "Congress" in the United States Bill of Rights.
Check out the Title page of John Milton's Paradise Lost.
The long s is derived from the old Roman cursive medial s. When the distinction between upper case (capital) and lower case (small) letter-forms became established, towards the end of the eighth century, it developed a more vertical form.In this period it was occasionally used at the end of a word, a practice which quickly died out but was occasionally revived in Italian printing between about 1465 and 1480. The short s was also normally used in the combination sf, for example in ?atisfaction. In German written in Blackletter, the rules are more complicated: short s also appears at the end of each word within a compound word.
The long s is subject to confusion with the lower case or minuscule f, sometimes even having an f-like nub at its middle, but on the left side only, in various roman typefaces and in blackletter. There was no nub in its italic typeform, which gave the stroke a descender curling to the left—not possible with the other typeforms mentioned without kerning.
The nub acquired its form in the blackletter style of writing. What looks like one stroke was actually a wedge pointing downward, whose widest part was at that height (x-height), and capped by a second stroke forming an ascender curling to the right. Those styles of writing and their derivatives in type design had a cross-bar at the height of the nub for letters f and t, as well as k. In roman type, these disappeared except for the one on the medial s.
The long s was used in ligatures in various languages. Three examples were for si, ss, and st, besides the German double s, ß.
The long s fell out of use in roman and italic typefaces well before the middle of the 19th century; in France the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in Britain in the decades around 1800, and some twenty years later in the United States. This may have been spurred by the fact that long s looks somewhat like an f (in both its roman and italic forms), whereas short s did not have this disadvantage, making it easier to identify, especially for people with problems of vision.
The long s survives in Fraktur typefaces. The present-day German double sß (das Eszett "the ess-zed" or scharfes-ess, "the sharp S") is an atrophied ligature form representing either ?z or ?s (see ß for more). Greek also features a normal sigma σ and a special terminal form ς, which may have supported the idea of specialized s forms. In Renaissance Europe a significant fraction of the literate class was familiar with Ancient Greek.
Just thought you’d like to keep your facts straight. Then, maybe not. Nevertheless, may Jah bless and the Christ shine upon you.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you have peace!.
as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the fine shepherd, the holy one of israel and holy spirit, jaheshua mischajah.
over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name.
NVL, you wrote: "There is no goddamn J sound in Hebrew, anytime you are using it, you are wrong."
Well, not as the "J" is pronounced in English today. I think THAT has been made abundantly clear. The letter "J" is of late Latin origin during the middle ages by the scribes of that time. And while I do not relish repeating myself, but I will, the letter "J" in the middle ages had the "Y" sound (or said another way, the double "ee" sound [as the double "e" in the word "geese"]. So, when combined with the vowel "a" you get "ee-ah" (Yah or, more accurately--Jah)--clear? The letter "J" is a legitimate usage in the spelling of the name of the Hebrew God.
These are facts and whether one believes in the God of the Hebrews or not is entirely irrelevant. The above are simply facts. But, just so you know, whether you care to know or not, I do worship Jah the Most Holy One of Israel. Hallelujah!
May Jah bless and the Christ shine upon you, NVL. This statement is a blessing and a kindness. I hope you recognize that.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you have peace!.
as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the fine shepherd, the holy one of israel and holy spirit, jaheshua mischajah.
over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name.
You’re very welcome, Gladiator. Note, however, that because of what the French did to the letter “J,” whenever it is we see the name “Jehovah” we tend to pronounce it “Gee-hovah,” right? (And, in English, that is the correct pronunciation of that word.) However, it is not the correct spelling nor the correction pronunciation of God’s name, which you now know is properly “Jah” (or “Iah” both with a “Y” sound). Not to mention the usage of incorrect vowels inserted between the consonants of God’s name. That’s another treatise. (As is the history of the letters “v” and “w”—again, another bit of history to be learned.)
These days, we often see God’s name spelled as “Yah” or “Yahweh.” This is an attempt to retain the same pronunciation of the divine name by using the letter “Y,” which readers will find much easier and more rapidly able to pronounce than “Jah.” Modern readers without the knowledge of the history of the letter “J” will immediately go to pronouncing the name as “Gee-ah”—incorrectly so. Just note, however, that the letter “Y” does not have the same history as the letter “J.” How shall I say, it does not have the same lineage/genealogy, so to speak.
By way of example: the Hebrew letter “yodh” is like the patriarch (of the letter), the Greek “iota” is like the son of the patriarch, the Roman “I” is like the grandson of the patriarch, and the letter “J” is like the great-grandson of the patriarch letter—all having the same sound. There is a lineage, a genealogy going on here.
The letter “Y” while being in the “alphabet family” is really a distant, distant, distant, cousin of the letters, yodh, iota, I, and J, thrice removed, so to speak, while the letter “J” is a direct descendant of the Hebrew “yodh.”
So, because the name of the Son of God contains within it God’s name, it would be spelled Jaheshua.
Hope this helps.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you have peace!.
as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the fine shepherd, the holy one of israel and holy spirit, jaheshua mischajah.
over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name.
Why does his name have to start with a 'J'?
Gladiator, the name doesn't HAVE to start with a "J."
The Hebrew "yodh" became the Greek "iota" and when borrowed by the Romans to create their Latin alphabet became the Roman "I." So the name can start with an "I." After many, many years, because the Roman letter "I" was both a vowel and consonant, the scribes of the time (Middle Ages) differentiated the vowel from the consonant by deciding to make the letter "I" the vowel and to give the consonant a little tail, which became the letter "J" while retaining the "Y" sound. Thus,"Iah" is pronounced exactly as "Jah" both with the "Y" sound. The French changed the sound of the letter "J" (y-sounding) to that which it is today for Western Europe and Britain and America. Much of Eastern Europe still retains the "J" with the "Y" sound. Either sound of the letter "J" is neither right or wrong, it's just what it is in that language which is spoken.
But, knowing that the "yodh," the "iota," the "I," and the "J" for millennia all had the "Y" sound, it is quite appropriate to use the "J" letter and keep its "Y" sound whenever it is you see or use the name of God--"Jah." You could just as easily and correctly use and spell God's name as "Iah." The same applies to the name of His Son.
This is pretty much the history of the letter "J." Easy. I hope this helps.
--Inkie
to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace!
as you may or may not be aware, i recently posted a thread regarding the relevancy of the name of our lord.
in that thread, and one or two others, i mentioned the language of our lord... and thus, the accurate rendering of that name.
Rub a Dub: Balgame dios! Jesus Christ is English, Jesucristo es puertoriqueno. Just kidding and having fun. --Inkie
[click here for a little history...].
mission accomplished!
my wife and i held off the announcement and were able to attend my bil's wedding & reception this past weekend.
Rub a Dub:
LOLOLOLOL . . . LOLOLOLOL . . . I just knew someone was gonna come back with something like you wrote. LOLOLOLOL And it's you, RAD. Thank you. Thank you for the laugh. Laughter is needed around here.
NobleLodge: And a "thank you" for your wishes.
--Inkie
[click here for a little history...].
mission accomplished!
my wife and i held off the announcement and were able to attend my bil's wedding & reception this past weekend.
SBC: I love White Russians! Had four of them on my birthday last month when my wife took me out for a dinner celebration and I got a beautiful buzz. --Inkie
in direct contradiction to the testimony of some of our friends and family, billy graham weighs in.
billy graham says christians don't actually hear the voice of god.
.. the question should have put billy in a dilemma.
Inkie, I don't get the impression that OTWO is generally mean, bitter, or angry at all.
Okay. However, I do.
I get the impression that his patience wears thin (like mine) from unsubstantiated baloney
pushed on others as truth (because he's been through that before in the org)
Then, in that case, he, like you, need to ask for the gift of the spirit that is “patience”—yes?
and now he can freely expose fallacious arguments
Yes he can.
and even get sarcastic if he feels like it.
And cause others to bleed if that is his will. You people amaze me.
But even if he was bitter,
In my opinion, he is.
I couldn't blame him.
Good for you.
We're all shaped in some way by our past experience in the WT.
Yes, some to being mean and bitter and sarcastic and cruel and unkind as result of their time in being with the Society.
SBC nailed it. Otherwise Inkie, your tone for your questions was so extremely condescending that it was clear from the writing.
Be that as it may.
Since that's the case, let me ask the condescending questions:
Okay.
1. Is there any evidence that the Lord actually spoke to you? Please provide it.
That would depend on how YOU define evidence in this case. If you are speaking about outward evidence, something so that YOU can say, ‘Oh, yes, I know the Lord spoke to Inkie,’ then, No, there is not any outward evidence. It’s rather subjective, I think. Only I heard Him speak to me. If I tell someone that he has, they can either believe me or not. That’s their prerogative. But it doesn’t give them any place to stand to be mean and unkind about it. Unlike the Society or any other religious organization or peoples belonging to such organization, I do not tell people how to live their lives or what organization to join or anything like them. So your meanness is a puzzlement to me.
2. If the answer to No. 1 is no, is it just possible that hearing the Lord's voice was something you heard others talking about?
No, it is not possible. Why? Because I know what I heard.
3. Is it possible that your wife yelled to take the headphones off,
Unlike some wives, and maybe even many wives (or yours), my wife does not yell. For as long as I’ve known her, she has never yelled. So, no, it’s not possible.
or that you just misunderstood something (like her waving to get your attention)
No, she was “downstairs” like I said, while I was “upstairs” in bed.
or had a feeling and someone else suggested it was the Lord's voice?
No, no other person was in my bedroom with me.
4. Is your thought that others have also heard the Lord's voice possibly flawed?
No, I don’t think so.
Could the others be delusional, have schizophrenia, or a desire to achieve grandeur?
No, I don’t think so here either. At least NOT the people “I” know.
5. Would you even entertain the thought that you did not actually hear the Lord's voice?
Aahhh . . . but, yes, early on when the Lord was speaking to me I have entertained that thought, OTWO. I have since also dismissed that thought.
6. If you made it up as a humor (it did seem like it when I first heard it), are you afraid to back down and admit it?
I did not make it up as humor. Sorry to disappoint you. I can see where you might have thought of my post as humorous. But, no, I was quite serious. No . . . I cannot back down and admit such a thing for if I did so, it would be a lie.
--Inkie
