Posts by NeonMadman

13

No, Virgina, God doesn't use Paradoxes.

by moshe in

jw
friends

believingxjw asked me yesterday, in response to my comment that it didn't make sense that god would allow paradoxes in the bible.. moshe, why would it not make sense that, "god would allow paradoxes to happen," ?.

my reply:.

luke 22:21-22 (new international version).

NeonMadman

Jesus knew Judas would betray him, yet if Judas didn't betray him, then Jesus couldn't fulfill his alleged mission to be sacrificed, as the lamb that saves the world, so actually, Judas was doing God's will, which means he should be blessed not cursed. If we follow this example to it's logical conclusion, it means that, if you follow God's spiritual direction, do His will,in the end you can be damned for doing what God told you to do!!!!!

I don't see a contradiction here. The Gospels never say that God TOLD Judas to betray Jesus. Jesus' betrayal was within God's plan, and someone certainly had to do it, but that doesn't mean that God endorsed the act, only that God can cause even sin to somehow contribute to his purposes. For example, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, he wasn't doing it because God told him to. Rather, he was pursuing his own selfish agenda, but God caused it to work for the punishmnet of Judah, which was something he had purposed to do. Later, Babylon came under judgment because of its actions.

Likewise with Judas - he wasn't betraying Jesus out of obedience to God, but for his own selfish reasons. Nonetheless, God is sovereign and can make all things work for his purposes, even when that is not the intent of the actor.

There may be some theological paradoxes in the Bible, but this doesn't at all strike me as one of them.

6

Psalms 83:18

by Joey Jo-Jo in

got a question i got stuck on, the original hebrew wording has yhwh, so it says:-.

that people may know that you, whose name is jehovah,.

you alone are the most high over all the earth.

NeonMadman

The Old Testament name for God is YHWH, which has been translated as "Jehovah" in some English Bibles. "Yahweh" is probably a better rendering. When Jewish scholars around the 2nd century BC made a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (known as the "Septuagint," which is abbreviated "LXX"), they chose to use the word for "Lord" rather than the actual name of God, since there was a Jewish tradition at the time of not pronouncing the Name. The apostles, in writing the New Testament books, quoted freely from the LXX without ever making any bones about the fact that the divine Name had been "removed" from it. Apparently the fact that they regarded Jesus as having the "name above EVERY name" was more important to them than the correct rendering of YHWH.

Psalm 83:18 is a big deal only because it is one of the four places where the translators of the King James Bible broke from their usual custom of rendering YHWH as "Lord" and instead rendered it as "Jehovah." Nonetheless, there are over 6000 other places where the Hebrew manuscripts contain YHWH that could just as legitimately have been rendered "Jehovah," so Psalm 83:18 is nothing special in that regard. The JW's have just made a big deal of it because so many people own the King James Version and they could surprise people by getting them to open their own Bible and see that God's name is Jehovah. In the New Testament, the name of Jesus is the one that is important; the name of Jehovah is never directly mentioned, and the NT writers had no problem quoting the LXX using "Lord," when the actual Hebrew said YHWH. So the issue of the Name wasn't as important a matter as the JW's would have it.

By the way, this also means that it wasn't "the churches" that removed the name of Jehovah from the Bible, as the JW's would have you believe - it was the pre-Christian Jewish translators of the LXX, and the apostles tacitly endorsed that usage by quoting the LXX in their writings without objection.

6

Psalms 83:18

by Joey Jo-Jo in

got a question i got stuck on, the original hebrew wording has yhwh, so it says:-.

that people may know that you, whose name is jehovah,.

you alone are the most high over all the earth.

NeonMadman

The Old Testament name for God is YHWH, which has been translated as "Jehovah" in some English Bibles. "Yahweh" is probably a better rendering. When Jewish scholars around the 2nd century BC made a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (known as the "Septuagint," which is abbreviated "LXX"), they chose to use the word for "Lord" rather than the actual name of God, since there was a Jewish tradition at the time of not pronouncing the Name. The apostles, in writing the New Testament books, quoted freely from the LXX without ever making any bones about the fact that the divine Name had been "removed" from it. Apparently the fact that they regarded Jesus as having the "name above EVERY name" was more important to them than the correct rendering of YHWH.

Psalm 83:18 is a big deal only because it is one of the four places where the translators of the King James Bible broke from their usual custom of rendering YHWH as "Lord" and instead rendered it as "Jehovah." Nonetheless, there are over 6000 other places where the Hebrew manuscripts contain YHWH that could just as legitimately have been rendered "Jehovah," so Psalm 83:18 is nothing special in that regard. The JW's have just made a big deal of it because so many people own the King James Version and they could surprise people by getting them to open their own Bible and see that God's name is Jehovah. In the New Testament, the name of Jesus is the one that is important; the name of Jehovah is never directly mentioned, and the NT writers had no problem quoting the LXX using "Lord," when the actual Hebrew said YHWH. So the issue of the Name wasn't as important a matter as the JW's would have it.

By the way, this also means that it wasn't "the churches" that removed the name of Jehovah from the Bible, as the JW's would have you believe - it was the pre-Christian Jewish translators of the LXX, and the apostles tacitly endorsed that usage by quoting the LXX in their writings without objection.

6

Psalms 83:18

by Joey Jo-Jo in

got a question i got stuck on, the original hebrew wording has yhwh, so it says:-.

that people may know that you, whose name is jehovah,.

you alone are the most high over all the earth.

NeonMadman

*DEleted duplicate post*

8

Would you call this a double standard on God's part?

by sabastious in

exodus 20: 13 - you shall not murder.. vs. exodus 12: 29 - at midnight the lord struck down all the firstborn in egypt, from the firstborn of pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.. i believe this is a classic case of "do what i say, not as i do.".

-sab.

NeonMadman

one could

I'm not quite sure how. If I leave $100 on my coffee table and you visit my house and you take the money and spend it, you are a thief. If I take the money and spend it, I've done nothing wrong. By definition, God is the giver of life and the one who has authority over it. If he decides to end a life, he is within his authority. If I decide to end a life, I am committing murder. The difficulty seems to arise when we presume that we are equals with God and can therefore judge his actions. He judges us, not the other way around.

13

Watchtower Meetings: Catholicism and Collapse?

by metatron in

jw
friends

if you are an old timer (with a good memory), you can clearly see the downward trend within witness meetings.. for example: at one time, the theocratic ministry school had a written review that was turned in and graded and handed back like any exam!

now, i observe the school talks done at the last minute by people grabbed to fill in - and the talks themselves require little or no effort , at that.. who comments?

kids with one word answers.

NeonMadman

I guess there might be even more dumbing down in the years ahead.

I haven't been to a meeting in 10 years, but from what I read on this forum, I'm not sure how much dumber they could get.

8

Would you call this a double standard on God's part?

by sabastious in

exodus 20: 13 - you shall not murder.. vs. exodus 12: 29 - at midnight the lord struck down all the firstborn in egypt, from the firstborn of pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.. i believe this is a classic case of "do what i say, not as i do.".

-sab.

NeonMadman

One objection to murder is that it involves taking to oneself a prerogative (i.e., the ending of a human life) that only belongs to God. One could hardly accuse God of doing wrong by taking to himself a prerogative that belongs only to him, could one?

35

Anyone take depression/anxiety meds?

by tresdecu in

jw
friends

just wondering if any ex or current "concious class" dubbers out there take anything; and if it works!

my family is still in and with everything else going on in my life, sometimes i consider asking my doc about zolft / prosac.. thanks for any replies!.

i should just ask 85% of my congregation-mates ... lol.

NeonMadman

Haven't needed them since I left the org - I was on antidepressants my last 15 years in.

28

Suggest a JW year text for 2011

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

how about this one?

: "we are of all men most to be pitied.

" -1 cor.

NeonMadman

Eze 34:10 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'Here I am against the shepherds, and I shall certainly ask back my sheep from their hand and make them cease from feeding [my] sheep, and the shepherds will no longer feed themselves; and I will deliver my sheep out of their mouth, and they will not become food for them.'"

12

'OKM_October_2010_for_Britain_OCRd.pdf'

by fokyc in

by popular request,.

http://www.box.net/shared/zhhrff8yp5.

remember this file is available for preview and/or downloading as you wish,.

NeonMadman

I don't think I've ever seen an OKM before that admitted there had been no "new peaks" in a given month. Usually that's all the Theocratic News column consisted of - new peak, new peak, new peak...