One knows it's inevitable, but still shock to the system. You have my sympathy. I reason this way: One needs friends that you can trust, that will stick with you through thick and thin (Prov. 17:17; 18:24). Conditional love and friendship are meaningless.
Posts by Vidqun
-
64Julia gets hit with the Shun Gun for the first time...and it really hurts.
by Julia Orwell inmy jw friend of 20 years, the first one i ever met, the one who got me into jwism in the first place, unfriended me from facebook without explanation.
other jws who have unfriended me at least called me names (apostate) and told me they were unfriending me, but they were no loss.
but someone who's been your friend since you were 13...and no explanation...i'd think 20 years- 20 years!
-
-
-
21
Is Blind Obedience to group of men supported by Scripture?
by nugget ini have been pondering over the demands made by the governing body for absolute loyalty and unquestioning obedience to their interpretation of scripture.
is this a reasonable request and is it in line with scripture?
alternatively is there in fact a scriptural defence for taking personal responsibility for beliefs and having a questioning attitude when being told what is to be believed.. there are ample scriptural warnings about trusting in men psalm 146 v 3 warns us not to put our trust in nobles or earthly men and galatians 1 v 8 goes even further stating that even if an angel were to preach to us something contrary to the teachings of christ it should be ignored.
-
-
Vidqun
Well thought out and well reasoned, Nugget! Humbled, that is how I feel, but you have put it in words and demonstrated it by an interesting example. Don't think the elders had much to say about that, except perhaps: Yes, but God and Jesus speak through the GB... Easy answer is: There is no evidence of that, rather evidence to the contrary. Reminds me of two scriptures that JWs love to quote:
In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said, We must obey God as ruler rather than men. (Act 5:29 NWT)
So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Rom 14:12 NWT)
-
14
good times we had when we were JWs
by smiddy inboth my wife and i were talking about some of the good times we had when we were jw`s ......and we did have good times socialising ,going out for meals ,hotels ,/ wedding functions /,with groups on barbequres /,camping at national parks , and beaches ,/enjoying fellowship at one anothers house on many an occassion ,/video nights / thearter nights with who we thought were good freinds ,our children grew up with their children and vice versa .i was a ms my wife was a people person who liked to entertain at home and many people responded to that.and i would say that apart from the first 5 years of our involvement and discarding the last few years of our leaving their was at least 20 + years of our relationship with our brothers and sisters who we considered our intimate freinds.. once you leave the religion they dont want to know you ,i tried a couple of times with no response.. whatever happened to trying to get you going again ?
(not that we ever would but they dont know that )and no neither of us were disfellowshipped.
i just think it`s a pity that in their veiw freindship is conditional on staying with the organization.
-
-
Vidqun
Sorry to hear, Amelia. Right through the Bible we are encouraged to look after widows, orphans and the fatherless boy/girl. Oh yes, I forget, the WT and its adherents are very picky when adhering to Scripture.
-
76
Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?
by sarahsmile inmany internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.
-
-
Vidqun
I agree. I have done a long study of the subject and it is impossible to establish Mosaic pronunciation of the Tertragrammaton. Safest would be to put the Tetragrammaton back to where it belongs. Each one must then decide for himself how he wants to pronounce it.
-
7
Why does the NWT omit Mt 23:14?
by Splash inmt 23:14 does not appear in the nwt, but does appear in many other translations:.
for this you shall receive the greater judgment.
for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
-
-
Vidqun
A huge criticism levelled against the New World Translation Committee is that they used the antiquated Westcott & Hort text (1881). In the Introduction to the Nestle-Aland text (26th edition), Aland says the following:
From the perspective of our present knowledge, this local-genealogical method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of New Testament textual tradition. The results are any but identical with those of Westcott-Hort, as the occasional ironic reference to the Standard Text as ‘Westcott-Hort redivivus’ would have it. This text (cf. App. II, p. 717 ff.) differs from the text of Westcott-Hort in numerous and quite significant points. Besides, the whole manuscript scene has changed radically since their day. The manuscript basis for Westcott-Hort’s work dates from IV century; the text of the II century could be reconstructed only by inference from agreements of the Western text (meaning the V century Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) with the Old Syriac and the Old Latin. Today the early papyri provide a wide range of witnesses to the text of about 200 A.D., and these are Greek witnesses. The view is becoming increasingly accepted today that neither Codex Bezae nor the Old Syriac derives directly from the II century. Similarly, the idea of a “Neutral text” has been retired. Neither Codex Vaticanus nor Codex Sinaiticus (nor even p75 of two hundred years earlier) can provide a guideline we can normally depend upon for determining the text. The age of Westcott-Hort and of Tischendorf is definitely over!
-
7
Why does the NWT omit Mt 23:14?
by Splash inmt 23:14 does not appear in the nwt, but does appear in many other translations:.
for this you shall receive the greater judgment.
for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
-
-
Vidqun
For those interested in the fine detail:
23:13 Ο?α? δ? ?μ?ν … ε?σελθε?ν . {A}
That ver. 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mk 12:40 or Lk 20:47 is clear (a) from its absence in the earliest and best authorities of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text, and (b) from the fact that the witnesses that include the passage have it in different places, either after ver. 13 (so the Textus Receptus) or before ver. 13. [1]
23:14 omit verse {A}
Verse 14 is not included in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text. Copyists have clearly added it from the parallel text in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47; this is confirmed by the fact that some copyists added it before v. 13, and others added it after v. 13. [2]
{A} {A} The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain.
[1] Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (50). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
[2] Omanson, R. L., & Metzger, B. M. (2006). A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger's Textual commentary for the needs of translators (41). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
-
15
What's the most extreme thing you ever did to apply Matt 6:33?
by Julia Orwell inas it's conflated with witnessing, meetings and so forth...what's the most extreme sacrifice you made for those things?
for me it was my mental health and maybe a career in something cooler than being an office fungus.. you?.
-
-
Vidqun
After receiving my degree, having to go to court in connection with the neutrality issue, and being sentenced to a lengthy period in military detention. After all that, I find out the WT joined the UN as NGO for nine years, with them still involved with the OSCE. Then reading up on the Malawi/Mexico scandal, what a come-down! And if I may quote BluePill2: I'm and IDIOT...
-
122
Suspicious
by Suspicious ini guess i'm new here.
born in and an ms. things just hasn't been making sense the more i think about it.
i'm starting to get suspicious.
-
-
Vidqun
Hi Suspicious and welcome! I have always contended that the Society should have had teams of bright, educated young men (and woman) keeping up with advances in Biblical Studies and Scientific Research. We have an example of young computer hackers that are employed by government agencies to counteract cyber attacks. But seeing that the Society is set in its ways and do not believe in Higher Education that would be impossible. So they will gradually fall behind, becoming an anachronism and the laughing stock of the world. No young person in his right mind would want to associate with such a pathetic lot. There will be fewer young people to take over the leadership positions, and they will die a slow death.
-
45
DF ones can now choose where to sit...New WT Policy
by Quarterback inaug wt q and a has now stated that any df'd person can sit with anyone, anywhere at a congregation meeting.. before, they had to sit at the back of the hall.
.
-
-
Vidqun
Look, we don't greet them and don't eat with them and don't associate with them, but otherwise we treat them as normal persons.
-
9
The Name of God as Revealed in Exodus 3:14 - according to ...
by *lost* ink j cronin.
a website dedicated to the interpretation of exodus 3v14.. .
'' exodus 3v14 is universally recognised as being amongst the greatest interpretive challenges in the bible.. .
-
-
Vidqun
Yes, I believe it is still an open question. Interesting interpretation mP. As Phizzy says, it could describe a characteristic and nothing more. The meaning differed as time went by, but none of the arguments was convincing. Here's some of my research for those that are interested in the subject.
As an early verb form, originating from Northwest Semitic, Hebrew hyh and Aramaic hwh can both mean “to be”, “come to be”, or “to become”:
1) Approximately 200 BCE hyh/hwh was viewed as the Qal of the verb, meaning “he is”, “he is busy” (the Hebr./Aram. vowel prefix yi- changes to ya-). Thus Ex. 3:14 can take on a static meaning, similar to ho oun of the LXX translators (cf. Ex. 3:14 LXX).
2) Approximately 130 CE and afterwards Aquila and Theodotion understood hyh/hwh to mean, “come to be” or “to become” (cf. ésomai hós ésomai, “I will be what I will be” of Aq, Th in ZDMG XXXIX, p. 568). From this the Jewish tendency to view God as “the Everlasting/Eternal One”. Mendelssohn translated the Tetragrammaton as “the Eternal One” in his German translation of the Bible (cf. Matthew Arnold’s French translation and The Moffatt Translation of the Bible).
N.B. Unfortunately the idea of eternity in such passages as Is. 40:28; 41:4; 43:13 cannot be incorporated in the Name. Later the German Reformer Luther also understood the Tetragrammaton in this way. He translated it as meaning “I shall be what I shall be” (cf. Ex. 3:14 Luth).
3) Jerome (ca. 380 CE) interpreted it as meaning, “to be” of “to exist”. He translated Ex. 3:14 as “I am what I am” (cf. Ex. 3:14 Vg). Later Dillmann (Genesis 1887, p. 74) viewed this as an expression of God’s ‘self-existence': ‘He that exists absolutely and lives in himself'. Schultz, in Alttest. Theol. (5), 387, preferred ‘the unchangeable, self-centered existence, the absolute personality’. G.H. Skipwith in “The Tetragrammaton” of JQR 10, 662 ff viewed yhwh ‘he shall be’ as an elliptical form of the exclamation of the Old Israelite Warrior God, being completed by 'eil and `ibânû, meaning ‘God is with us’.
4) Ibn Ezra and J.D. Michaelis viewed Ex. 3:14 as “I that will appear, that will reveal myself”. God provides to all needs. From this the Jewish exclamation “as sure Jehwah lives!” J. Wellhausen explained it as meaning “I am because I am”.
5) W. Gesenius, J. LeClerc, and W.F. Albright viewed hyh/hwh as a causative Hiphfil of the verb, the etymology referring to “the Creating One”. The latter corresponds to the Syriac Aphel ahwi “create” as in the poetical Bar-Hebrew XIII. Nevertheless, the revelation of the Divine Name Jehwah had taken place with the Israelite nation in view, as well as the actions of the nation regarding their national god; the cosmic working of God is rather connected to the other names (titles) of God. TDOT, vol. V, p. 513, is more specific:
The consensus of modern scholarship supports the biblical text in associating the name Yahweh with the root hâyah “become”. The parallel Amorite form furnishes the final link in the chain of evidence. As we pointed out above, the Amorite evidence poses the problem of what stem is involved, since in Amorite the verb could be either the simple stem or the causative. In Hebrew, however, yahweh must be causative, since the dissimilation of yaqthal to yiqthal did not apply in Amorite, while it was obligatory in Hebrew. The name yahweh must therefore be a hiphil. Although the causative of hwy is otherwise unknown in Northwest Semitic (with the exception of Syriac, which is of little relevance here), it seems to be attested in the name of God of Israel.
All reconstructions that recognize a verbal form in YHWH associate it with a sentence name or with a sentence from a cultic litany. This conclusion is based on typological arguments deriving from other sentence names: since causative forms of other verbs meaning “be” occur in sentence names, we may assume that an analogous causative form underlies the Hebrew divine name.
In Supplement to Encyclopaedia Judaica, dealing with the Hebrew language, p. 1566, the Causative prefix ha- is discussed briefly: “The Hebrew causative prefix ha- appears in Amarna as hi- (attenuation). An example is EA 256:7, hi-ih-bi-e; it is clearly a Hebrew form which is impossible in Accadian. The scribe used the Hebrew h-h-bh-y-' for the common Accadian verb of the same meaning, puzzuru.”
In Introduction to the Old Testament with a comprehensive review of the Old Testament studies and a special supplement on the Apocrypha, on pp. 400, 579, R.K. Harrison comments:
The provenance and meaning of the tetragrammaton have been the subject of repeated philological discussion for many decades. Numerous scholars adhered to the view that a causative interpretation of the verb-stem hwh was the only one to supply the real sense of the term. Against those who objected that a causative connotation was too abstract a concept for that period of historical development, Albright pointed out quite properly that such an idea could be illustrated amply from pre-Mosaic texts of Mesopotamia and Egypt. [FSAC, p. 260.] However more philological research has made it clear that the name is in fact a regular substantive word in which the root hwh is preceded by the preformative y. As a proper noun the tetragrammaton is thus the designation of a Person and stands in contrast to such titles as El Shaddai and El Elyon.
There can be no question that the name is connected etymologically with the Hebrew word hyh, “to be”, or more preferably with an earlier variant form of the root hwh. However, it can no longer be regarded as an imperfect causative form of the root hwh, but must be considered instead as a regular substantive in which the root hwh is preceded by the preformative y. As a proper noun it constitutes the name of a Person, in contrast with titles such as Elyon, El Elyon, and Elohim. The name emphasizes the being or existence of God in personal terms, and thus brings Him into relationship with other, human, personalities.
In recent years R. Kittel ascribes a dynamic interpretation to Ex. 3:14, likewise W.F. Albright, P. Haupt, J. Obermann, and J.P. Hyatt. These viewed 'êhyêh as being a causative verb (“the one who shall cause to be”).
The phrase 'êh(e)yêh 'äshêr 'êh(e)yêh, “I am what I am” of Ex. 3:14 is viewed as the traditional etymology of the Tetragrammaton. Theodore’s interpretation of the term Jao ‘the existing God' and the LXX’s explanation of Ex. 3:14ego eimi ho oun caused scholars to conclude that YHWH is a form of the verb hyh “to be”.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the subject caused quite a stir. Controversy and speculation were the order of the day (see S.R. Driver, “Recent theories on the origin and nature of the Tetragrammaton”, Studia Biblica, Oxford 1885, pp. 12 sqq.). Most scholars agreed that Yahweh was an imperfect form of verb hyh. From this basic tenet, they would construct elaborate theories. Some interpret hyh in a causative sense to mean ‘giver of life’. Others view it as a neutrum, ‘he that is’. Mostly no grammatical evidence is forthcoming to substantiate such views.
In some passages the verb hwh (Gen. 27:29; Is. 16:4; Neh. 6:6; Eccl. 2:22), also means “to be”, but the Imperf. of the verb is yehû' (Eccl. 11:3). If the text of Job 37:6 is correct, then the third meaning of verb hwh is “to fall”. This is the only place where it occurs in the Qal form. After comparing it with the Arabic verb, J. Wellhausen suggested that it could also mean ‘the feller'. This interpretation conforms to the notion of the ‘thunder god’. In light of the substantive hawwah pl. houwth, destroyer, and the pre-Islamic gods Jaquth, Ja'uq, Jathi, Eerdmans prefers this suggestion (Godsdienst van Israel I, p. 52). However, he acknowledges that the verb was never used as such and that it remains an educated guess.
In TDOT, vol. V, p. 513, Freedman-O'Connor remind us that the form 'êh (e)yêh of Ex. 3:14 is important: “Finally the form 'êhyêh in Ex. 3:14 deserves attention. As we have seen, it occurs also in patristic and classical sources (cf. Hos. 1:9, where instead of the expected “I am not your God” we find “I am not your 'êhyêh”). This word is commonly understood as a 1 st person singular imperfect. There is some evidence, however, that this may be a popular interpretation and that the form may in fact be identical with yahwêh with the shift y > '. This shift is known in Amorite.... Thus the form 'êhyêh might be equivalent to yahwêh. If, however, yahwêh is a hiphil form, then 'hyh might represent a parallel aphel formation. The form could also be a 1 st person imperfect hiphil or even a noun formation with a prosthetic aleph.”
In connection with 'êhyêh 'äshêr 'êhyêh of Exodus 3:14 Wilhelm Gesenius, in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, as translated by S.P. Tregelles, 1979 edition (p. 337B), said: “To this origin, allusion is made to Exod. 3:14 'êhyêh 'äshêr 'êhyêh “I (ever) shall be (the same) that I am (to-day)”; compare Apoc. 1:4, 8 ho oun kai ho ein kai ho erchomenos: the name yhwh being derived from the verb hâwâh to be, was considered to signify God as eternal and immutable, who will never be other than the same. Allusion is made to the same etymology, Hos. 12:6, yehowâh zikherü “Jehovah (i.e., the eternal, the immutable) is his name.”