Here is an interesting perspective:
BelisemDeBelimakom
JoinedPosts by BelisemDeBelimakom
-
53
Watchtower vs Islam: Why the deafening silence?
by raymond frantz inwhy has the watchtower failed spectacularly to evangelize to the muslims?
considering the recent influx of muslim people in european countries you would think that some attempt from the religion that touts the are preaching the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth would have been made.instead the only meaningful attempt dates back to 1953 ,almost 70 years ago!!!!
book " man's search for god.what do you think?
-
-
-
28
JW "new light" immediately reversed/contradicted
by BoogerMan inseptember 2022 study watchtower - par.
14 p. 18 - "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.
the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things before their death.
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
So everybody will get resurrected no matter what. They define a new level for the fear mongering purposes: the goats, who won't get ressurected. It is kept and maintained by the Guardians of Doctrine. Consequently, they can cast anyone into that class as they wish, same as before.
All others out of the goat class will get resurrected. This is the bait, they can continue attracting new ones: "You want to see your loved ones?"
P.S. It is funny those critical paragraphs (p. 14 and 19) have no Biblical references The article is full of Bible references but none of them give any of the details they give on the paragraphs...
-
11
14 Document Pack--Talk Outlines-Data Information-Announcements!
by Atlantis in14 document pack.
talk outlines in english and spanish, announcements, personal data information which includes:.
see document number 13instructions for use of personal datarefusal to sign notice and consent for use of personal data"the publisher should be informed that the congregation or branch office may not be able to evaluate his suitability to fulfill certain roles within the congregation or participate in many congregation activities, such as serving as a regular pioneer, a ministerial servant, or an elder.https://www.filemail.com/d/sobkuyhiasjogql orhttps://we.tl/t-cudhivn75uatlantis!
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
Thank you Atlantis!
July 15 Announcements
5. Payment Requests: Starting in September 2022, congregations and Kingdom Hall Operating Committees will be requested to cancel their bank accounts and transfer their funds to the branch. The branch will handle the payment requests in behalf of congregations and Kingdom Hall Operating Committees.
It maybe that they are preparing for the upcoming crisis (as they are part of the system, they know the "plans"): according to some: financial chaos is imminent, and every one should withdraw their money from banks immediately. Probably somethings are about to happen this September.... and they will say again, see how God is directing his people...
7. Congregations in Andorra: These changes apply to congregations in Andorra, with the exception that their bank accounts will not be cancelled.
8. Congregations in Gibraltar: These changes do not apply to congregations in Gibraltar, with the exception that they will now use the feature “Transfer funds” to send their monthly donations to the branch (see paragraph 3).Andorra and Gibraltar: tax evasion heavens.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.
who is the way, the truth and the life?
(john 14:6).
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
The Bible Unfiltered by Michael S. Heiser
Chapter 13 - What's In a Name?
“I am that I am”—God’s response when Moses asks for his name is famous for both its simplicity and its mystery (Exod 3:14 LEB). What exactly does it mean?
In Hebrew, God says ehyeh asher ehyeh (“I am that I am”). The verb form for “I am” is ehyeh. If you’ve studied a language, you know that verbs—action words—have grammatical person and number. With most languages, “number” refers to singular or plural; “person” refers to the subject of the verb. When I taught biblical languages, I would explain it this way: I am number one (first person). You are second fiddle (second person). Everyone else (he, she, or they) is a third party (third person).
In this sentence, the name of God, ehyeh, is a first-person, singular form of the verb “to be” (hayah). It’s a statement of self-existence—and, therefore, a denial of being created by any higher power or force.
Yet, the consonants used in ehyeh are not exactly the same as those found in the name of God in thousands of other places in the Hebrew Old Testament: y-h-w-h. These four consonants are known as the sacred Tetragrammaton (meaning “four letters”). Out of reverence, Israelites didn’t pronounce the name. In writing, they eventually provided the consonants with vowels for a different Hebrew word—adonay or “Lord.”1 English translations represent the sacred name with “LORD” in small capital letters. That actually isn’t a translation of the four consonants, though. It’s a reverential substitute for a word that was not spoken.
If ehyeh is the name God gives in Exodus 3:14, where does yhwh come from? For an answer, we need to take a closer look at the Hebrew’s meaning and the forms it can take. Ehyeh and yhwh come from the same verb, hayah (meaning “to be”). Ehyeh is the first-person form of the verb and is typically translated as “I am.” That same root word also appears as hawah, a standard spelling in texts older than the earliest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament.2 The name yhwh is the third-person form of hawah.
All this suggests that yhwh should be pronounced yihweh, which would mean “he is” (since it’s in the third person). But that’s problematic. Elsewhere in the Bible, the divine name is shortened to two consonants (yh; e.g., Exod 15:2), and Hebrew scribes always added an “a” vowel to it (yah). So if the first half of the name is yah, it wouldn’t seem yihweh is the right option. That’s why scholars prefer yahweh as the spelling of the divine name. But, as you might guess, that’s disputed, too.
To unravel the debate over the mystery behind God’s name, we have to dive deeper into the original language. Stick with me here—even if you don’t know Hebrew, the possibilities present intriguing options for interpretation.
The most straightforward explanation is a technical one: Yahweh is a third-person form in what’s called the imperfect conjugation of the Hiphil stem. It sounds complicated, but this conjugation basically accounts for the added “y” and the yah spelling of the shorter name. Since the Hiphil stem is used to indicate the subject’s role as a cause for something else, the meaning of the divine name yahweh would be something like “he causes to be” or “he brings into existence.” This would denote God as the one who is creator.
But here’s the rub: There are no examples of this form of the verb hayah/hawah in all known ancient Hebrew writing samples except for the Old Testament. For that reason, some scholars don’t like this explanation.3 They want at least one parallel. For several linguistic reasons, they prefer to understand y-h-w-h simply as “he is” (yihweh) without regard to the shorter yah spelling 4.
In the end, both possibilities are workable. One (yihweh) maintains the idea that God is uncreated; he just is. The other (yahweh) proposes that the God of Israel is the one who brings all things into being. He is and he is the creator. Both are powerful theological statements.
Notes:
- The divine name should not be pronounced “Jehovah” (or “Yehovah” or “Yahovah”). “Jehovah” is a German spelling. In German, the letter “j” is pronounced like the English “y.” The pronunciation and spelling of Jehovah arose in the Middle Ages as a misreading of Hebrew scribal practices. The scribes refused to pronounce the divine name out of reverence. When they had to write it, they used the four consonants (yhwh) but swapped in the vowels from the word adonay (“lord”) to indicate that adonay should be said aloud, not any variation using the consonants yhwh. The resulting combination of yahovah or yehovah is an artificial word—a misunderstanding that resulted from combining consonants and vowels that were not meant to be read together.
- The Hebrew letters waw (“w”) and yod (“y”) came to be interchangeable in the spellings of some words.
- See Ernst Jenni, “Yahweh,” TLOT 522.
- In very ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, the yi- prefix derived from the ya- prefix. See Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. Eng. ed. (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 118 [§41e]. It is possible that this is what has happened with the divine name.
-
49
Military Service Confusion
by Sea Breeze incan someone please call these three guys and tell them that the first gentile christian was an active duty roman military officer named cornelius.
these guys have been locked up for 25 years!.
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
Thank you See Breeze! Thank you truth_b_known!
Although in Luke 3:14 it is John the Baptist who is speaking, the idea remains the same: Jesus Christ nor apostles did not asked any officers (whatever their rank) to change/resign:
- Nicodemus, member of Pharisees, a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1)
- Joseph of Arimathea, a reputable member of the Sanhedrin (Mark 15:43)
In fact, it was the same in the past, example from Elisha's days:
- Naaman, the army chief of the king of Syria (2 Kings 5:17-19)
Additionaly, the famous verse which is used by WT regarding military issue, Matthew 26:52, is clearly being used out of context. Why Peter was carrying a sword? Why did Jesus allowed swords and later commanded his disciples to arm themselves? Luke 22:36.
Barnes' Notes on Matthew 26:52
"However, the most satisfactory interpretation is that which regards it as a caution to Peter. Peter was rash. Alone he had attacked the whole band. Jesus told him that his unseasonable and imprudent defense might be the occasion of his own destruction. In doing it he would endanger his life, for they who took the sword perished by it. This was probably a proverb, denoting that they who engaged in wars commonly perished there."
-
49
Military Service Confusion
by Sea Breeze incan someone please call these three guys and tell them that the first gentile christian was an active duty roman military officer named cornelius.
these guys have been locked up for 25 years!.
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
This was the direction given to first century Christians
1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (NWT)
"Nevertheless, just as (Lord) has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And so I give this directive in all the congregations. Was any man already circumcised when he was called? Let him not undo his circumcision. Has any man been called while uncircumcised? Let him not get circumcised. Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God."
Cornelius was called while he was an active centurion, and was not asked to resign or leave this position. Consequently he might well have continued working at the military. -
21
2022-07-01--Additional Contribution Box!
by Atlantis inthe watchtower wants more money!.
https://we.tl/t-jyt0susog5.
atlantis!.
-
-
-
8
2 Peter and Jude and 1 Enoch
by Parallax ini'm new to the forum and i have a question about what was said in a 16-year-old thread at this forum.
a poster by the name of leolaia said.... the author of 2 peter did not recognize that jude 6 was an allustion to 1 enoch (just as he did not realize that jude 9 was an allusion to the assumption of moses and thus rephrased it incoherently in 2 peter 2:11), or he may have objected to the enochic reference (just as jude 14-15 was omitted in 2 peter 2).
in either case, the author overlooked the enochic allusion and instead recognized the passage as an allusion of hesiod and thus embellished the passage from jude with an allusion to hesiod's tartarus.. .
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books
https://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-apocrypha.html
If they did all they can to remove/ban Apocrypha, Jasher and Enoch etc. from the Bible, then it is worth all the efforts reading those books and come to a conclusion (whether they are inspired or strengthens faith) by one's self. WT corporation also, directly and indirectly, rejects those books. This is yet another motivation to read them. The muslims are right when they say, the Bible is corrupted: seen the list of removed many books and altered/removed verses.
Other recommended books to deepen Bible knowledge that "fill the blanks":
The Book of the Bee
Edited and translated by E. A. Wallis Budge [1886]
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/index.htm
The Book of the Cave of Treasures
translated from the Syriac by E. A. Wallis Budge [1927]
-
8
2 Peter and Jude and 1 Enoch
by Parallax ini'm new to the forum and i have a question about what was said in a 16-year-old thread at this forum.
a poster by the name of leolaia said.... the author of 2 peter did not recognize that jude 6 was an allustion to 1 enoch (just as he did not realize that jude 9 was an allusion to the assumption of moses and thus rephrased it incoherently in 2 peter 2:11), or he may have objected to the enochic reference (just as jude 14-15 was omitted in 2 peter 2).
in either case, the author overlooked the enochic allusion and instead recognized the passage as an allusion of hesiod and thus embellished the passage from jude with an allusion to hesiod's tartarus.. .
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
From Youtube Channel of NathanH83
History of the Apocrypha in a nutshell:
The Apocryphal books were written before the time of Christ. Most of them were written in Hebrew by Jewish authors. At least 1 was written in Greek. They were included in the Hebrew Jewish Bible, and the Jewish Greek translation (used by Greek-speaking Jews).
The Jews took these books out of their Hebrew text very early on, about 90 AD or so. But the Christians still had them in their Greek copies (Christians were given the Bible before the Jews took them out).
So the Christians still had them in their Bible. But because the Jews took them out, then some Christians very early on wanted to take them out also, because they believed the Jews that they were never there to begin with (a lie). But the church required them to be left in. 3 church councils in the 300's required them to be left in the Bible. Jerome wanted to take them out, but the church wouldn't let him.
It wasn't until the 1500's when the Protestants took them out of the main body of text and placed them into their own section called "Apocrypha" (first time in history the Christian church ever did this).
Then in the 1600's Protestants in America started to print foreign language bibles without that section. But those bibles were few in the start. English Bibles had to include it by law.
In the 1700's, during the Revolutionary war, that was the first time an English Bible in America was printed without the Apocrypha (Britain forbade omitting that section in English Bibles up until then).
Then in the early 1800's Protestants convinced Bible societies to stop using money to print Bibles with that section.
By the time it was 1885, the King James Bible was no longer printed with the Apocryphal section, and the Apocrypha disappeared altogether from Protestant Bibles.
Then in the 2000's Christians like me realized we've been majorly ripped off.
-
39
ALL babies are "little enemies of God"...
by BoogerMan instraight from the horse's gb's mouth - from the 2022 convention broadcast.. it's at the 38 min.
30 secs.
point of the jw broadcast: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/2022convention/pub-co-r22_1_video.
-
-
BelisemDeBelimakom
Probably they will do some editing/cutting/censoring later as they did last year, so let us all make sure to save these videos offline.