You Know

Joined

• started 63 topics
• posted 1,977 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by You Know

• 
  56

  The Name Jehovah

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please can someone shed light on the claim that when the bible was originaly written it had the name jehovah in it over 7000 times but it was changed because of superstition?

  how do you dispute it?

  exactly where did they get that crazy version of their bible anyway?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  The thing that makes the NWT superior, in my opinion, is that it is consistent, in that it generally translates the original language words the same way. Other translations don't show that same integrity. / You Know
• 
  25

  You Know's Seared Conscience

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [moving this to its own thread so as to avoid hijacking the original thread to a new topic.].

  when i pointed out how you know was associating with apostates by being here, as the society has pointed out, he responded:.

  my conscience doesn't bother me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  You DO think highly of yourself, don't you, You Know?

  I think highly of the truth. This isn't really about me. / You Know
• 
  63

  Suggestions for baby names please

  by hippikon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we would like to ask you good folk ( the bad ones can play as well) for suggestions for baby names.

  its getting close now and we need ideas.

  we dont know the sex yet.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  I think Bible names are good. But many are over used, like John or Mark, Deborah, Mary. Go for some of the lesser used biblical names. I don't know that anyone has ever reused Judas since the time of Christ. So you might think about that. Also Jezebel for a girl would be kinda cool. You could go with a Nimrod or Delilah too. Those names aren't too common. / You Know
• 
  25

  You Know's Seared Conscience

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [moving this to its own thread so as to avoid hijacking the original thread to a new topic.].

  when i pointed out how you know was associating with apostates by being here, as the society has pointed out, he responded:.

  my conscience doesn't bother me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  So NOW he's equal to Jesus Christ himself!

  That's an interesting accusation. When Jesus told the Jews he was God's Son the demonized Pharisees accused him of making himself God's equal. I merely pointed to the example of Christ, whose example we Christians are supposed to follow, and yet I am accused of equating myself with Christ. Obviously, you are motivated by the same evil spirit that animated Christ's accusers. Some things never change, it really is amazing, not to mention faith strengthening. / You Know
• 
  25

  You Know's Seared Conscience

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [moving this to its own thread so as to avoid hijacking the original thread to a new topic.].

  when i pointed out how you know was associating with apostates by being here, as the society has pointed out, he responded:.

  my conscience doesn't bother me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  you are following the path of Uzzah. He, too, felt that the explicit rules didn't actually apply to him in that particular instance, for if he didn't step in some damage would be done to Jehovah's reputation.

  That is not an appropriate comparison. Uzzah violated God's law, not some principle that someone felt should apply in that situation. Not that Bible principles should be quickly set aside, not at all, but in cases involving a Christian's conscience, there may be, and often are, various counter principles that must be weighed when making a decision. Jehovah's spirit brings true Christian freedom, and because each ones conscience responds differently, those who truly walk by God's spirit may not always appear to be in step with those who want to lay down rules for walking and dictate the pace of the stride. No doubt as an x-Society man and x-elder you were once big on enforcing certain rules that you mistook for God's law. You evidently still have that mindset and impulse to judge others by that same now rapidly shrinking yardstick. / You Know
• 
  25

  You Know's Seared Conscience

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [moving this to its own thread so as to avoid hijacking the original thread to a new topic.].

  when i pointed out how you know was associating with apostates by being here, as the society has pointed out, he responded:.

  my conscience doesn't bother me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  your conscience has been so seared you no longer recognize wrongdoing when you commit it.

  LOL. And just how are you able to diagnose my conscience? And I suppose posting on the Internet, slapping apostates around, is the "wrongdoing" that has supposedly done in my conscience. That's a hoot man.

  For instance, the Society has applied that principle to not bringing pornography into your home via the television or computer. You, on the other hand, invite apostates into your home all the time, via this site.

  Sure, I know the Wt has applied that principle that way. But it is just that---a principle---and not a law as you might imagine. Every Witness has at some time or another disputed with someone at the door over some doctrinal point. The Trinity was originally a doctrine that sprang from mentally diseased, apostate, anointed ones. Does that mean that a Witness violates a principle on bad association if he disputes or studies the doctrine in order to verify its falsity? Of course not. The Society naturally wants to protect the brothers and sisters, much like a parent might, so they use those types of principles to discourage the friends from getting mixed up with you people. And I am glad they do. But, there are exceptions to such principles. Christ, for example, was commanded to go only to the lost sheep of Israel, yet on occasion he ventured to Sidon and Samaria and helped non-Jews. So, you really can't judge how I may serve Jehovah.

  And you typically greet apostates here, usually with rude greetings, but greetings nonetheless.

  That's just plain silly. The Scriptures condemn befriending those who have apostatized from the truth. I am constantly accused because I am not "loving" and "kind" to apostates while they are raping and pillaging. In fact, it seems that that's about the last cork in the apostate's pop gun to shoot at me---that I am somehow not Christian because I don't deal so kindly with Jehovah's enemies. Yet, now you are accusing me of being chums with apostates. You can't have it both ways. You can't have it either way really. Obviously you are desperate to find some accusation, and, any old accusation will do if you can make it stick, right?

  But you always go beyond posting your initial messages to respond to those who post, thereby engaging them in extended conversation. Since you are not even to "say a greeting" to such ones, your conversations with them are condemned by the scriptures and by the Society.

  I don't suppose you have ever read the book of Job? Job conversed for days with his apostate accusers; round after round after round; argument and counter-argument. He would make a speech, then his accusers would counter; then Job would respond to their argument. God didn't condemn Job for that. In fact, the whole thing took place by God's allowance. Obviously, Jehovah knows the issues of apostates today. While I can see the wisdom of his in not allowing the organization to be distracted with your issues, it is entirely in keeping with Jehovah's determination to settle the issues once and for all, that he would place some of his servants in the fire to be grilled by those who boast that no one can stand up to the so-called "truth about the truth." Paul in fact stated that God had set some anointed Christians on 'exhibition as a theatrical spectacle' before even the angels, as well as men and the world.

  Isaiah 29:21 says that God is going to finish off "those who lay bait even for the one reproving in the gate, and those who push aside the righteous one with empty arguments." Jehovah doesn't condemn those who do the reproving the apostate, but rather his judgment is against the bragger and tyrant that dismisses the truth with vain arguments. Obviously for Jehovah judgment to come about, his people would have to have some dealings with the bad guys, yet they are not held guilty by God.

  Yet you associate with us all the time. The only thing lacking is our physical presensce from your home, but our ideas are routinely invited in.

  I "associate" with you because this is a public forum and here is where the ongoing fight is being fought. I have no interest in apostasy. I don't read the web sites you people put up. But as long as apostates have this kind of platform to engage others in an active dialouge I suspect that Jehovah will always have one of his own there too. If not me, than perhaps someone else.

  Your ideas are also routinely rejected. That's the whole point. Jesus disputed with the Devil on several occasions. It even says that Christ was led by the spirit to be tempted by the Devil. Christ wasn't so sheltered that he ran from any encounter. It was God's will that he be directly subjected to the Devil's sly temptations. Jehovah knows his loyal ones can stand up to the apostate because God's word and spirit is far superior to anything you have. That is what is being demonstrated on this forum. We know it, God knows it, and I suspect the demons know it too. / You Know
• 
  56

  The Name Jehovah

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please can someone shed light on the claim that when the bible was originaly written it had the name jehovah in it over 7000 times but it was changed because of superstition?

  how do you dispute it?

  exactly where did they get that crazy version of their bible anyway?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  It may indicate it to you but not to me. Why would I find the NEW anything to be accurate. I stick with the Douay-Rheims or Ignatious version it is a much more accurate translation.

  That is foolish reasoning and just plain wrong. The Douay was translated at a time when Biblical scholarship was at a low point. It was a hastily thrown together translation that was motivated by the desire of the Vatican not to be upstaged by the upstart Chruch of England that came out with the King James Bible in 1611. For hundreds of years prior to that time the Catholic Chruch tried to stiffle the Bible and discouraged its study and translation into any language but Latin. The Vatican in fact sponsored numerous inquisitions that tortured and murdered men and women that dared to even read the book. Since those Dark Ages of ignorance, much more has come to light regarding how the Bible should be translated and understood. As regards the Divine Name though, in the post above, Jerome was quoted because he recognized that the original NT scriptures had the YHWH and that it was later removed. In case you didn't know, Jerome was the first to translate the Bible into Latin. The Vatican used his translation for centuries thereafter. / You Know
• 
  56

  The Name Jehovah

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please can someone shed light on the claim that when the bible was originaly written it had the name jehovah in it over 7000 times but it was changed because of superstition?

  how do you dispute it?

  exactly where did they get that crazy version of their bible anyway?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  Jehovah is an awe-inspiring God, there's no question about it. If you fear his awesome majesty there is in fact hope for you. / You Know
• 
  56

  The Name Jehovah

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please can someone shed light on the claim that when the bible was originaly written it had the name jehovah in it over 7000 times but it was changed because of superstition?

  how do you dispute it?

  exactly where did they get that crazy version of their bible anyway?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  Amos is old testament, so it doesnt disprove that the apostles new any such thing and my Douay-Rheims the word Lord not Jehovah in it, so again no proof.

  In the book of Amos the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible uses the name of Yahweh. That indicates that the YHWH was originally used in that verse. So when the apostles quoted that verse they would have no doubt used the name. That was in fact the whole point of Jame's citing Amos in the first place. (I was mistaken earlier when I referred to Peter quoting Amos. It was actually James, who happened to refer to Peter during his speech at Acts) He was using that text to prove that the God of the Hebrews, who called himself by that name, was now giving his name to non Jewish people. If the apostles would have merely used the name Lord it would have been meaningless. The fact is that all gods had names. The Bible even mentions the names of the false gods like Chemosh, Dagon, Nisroch, Molech, and the various local baals, like the Baal of Peor, etc. So, it would have been necessary for the apostles to actually use the name Jehovah, or Yahweh if you prefer, to make the point that the Hebrews' God was, with the advent of Christianity, going international, as it were.

  St John wrote the book of Apocalypse. How do you know that it is the same Jah in that referance?

  John wrote the Apocalypse in Greek, yet the word Halleujah is transilerated from the Hebrew language. Transliterated means that the word is lifted directly from one language without translating it. The expression halleujah occurs over 20 times in the Hebrew Bible, what you call the Old Testament. In the NWT that expression is translated as "Praise Jah you people." One place it occurs is Psalm 104:35.

  And even if it did Im pretty interested in this "tribal" god theory and the Psalms could have adapted the word from the old tribal name.

  Your own Catholic scholars recognize that God had a distinctive personal name that he revealed to his people. The tribal god theory is nonsense. As I pointed out previously, the revelation that Jehovah made of himself was totally unique. The Hebrews in fact often were frequently seduced to worship various local baals and what amounted to tribal gods, like Chemosh and Molech. Jehovah's word could not have come from such ignorant people as existed at that time. The revelation of Jehovah was completely revolutionary at the time, and still is for that matter, but the point is it did not come FROM the Hebrews, it came TO them and THROUGH them merely.

  None of the text in the N.T was changed.

  That may not necessarily be true. Here's a brief discussion of that issue as found in one of the Watchtower's reference works.

  *** it-2 9-10 Jehovah ***
  Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
  The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky'ri·os or The·os' for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

  It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen's Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by PIPI; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."

  As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., %&%*], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters." In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: "The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho'ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read PIPI [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI]."-Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.

  The so-called Christians, then, who "replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios" in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.-2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.

  / You Know
• 
  17

  Graven Images

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  maybe some of you are familiar with the study guid that the j.w's brought to me.

  its called "what does god really require of us?

  " in chaper 2 they mention graven images.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  You Know

  The last time I saw my jw mil she had on earrings that had Noah's Arc figures.

  That's a new one on me. They must look pretty gawdy I would imagine. What kind of outfit would a woman wear with Noah's ark earrings anyway? Perhaps with a lepord skin pillbox hat and a mink around her neck? Maybe she's trying to make a fashion statement or something? I don't know. I am totally stumped on that one. / You Know