Posts by Island Man

54

The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear in

i've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession.

after researching the issue for several years, i have come to a conclusion/theory that i would love to receive some feedback on.

this theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original nt scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't.

Island Man

"I know I'm going to sound like a cheerleader for "The Society," but how does the NWT in any way minimize the role of Jesus? I have copies of many translations and I fail to see how the NWT does what you are suggesting."

Here's a blatant example of Watchtower replacing "kyrios" with "Jehovah" even though the writer was not quoting from the OT. Worse yet, the replacement corrupts the true meaning of the text for the text is using "kyrios" to refer to Jesus. But Watchtower's Jehovarization of the text changes it to refer to Jehovah and makes it illogical. The text is Romans 14:8, which in the NWT, reads (NWT):

"None of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only, and no one dies with regard to himself only; 8 for both if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah. 9 For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living."

The use of Jehovah in Romans 14:8 is inconsistent with the context of Romans 14:9 which clearly identifies the "kyrios" of Romans 14:8 as being Christ. You see, Romans 14:9 gives the justification for why we belong to kyrios whether we live or die - because that kyrios became kyrios of dead and the living by dying a sacrificial death. Romans 14:8 is supposed to flow logically into Romans 14:9 where the kyrios is identified as being Christ. But in the NWT this definite logical flow is shattered by replacing kyrios with Jehovah thereby corrupting Romans 14:9 in the NWT to being an illogical non-sequitur.

Now notice how the text makes more logical sense in KJ21 when "kyrios" is consistently and accurately rendered as "Lord":

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and arose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

160

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

by Alive! in

i've noted active, devoted jw's state the above.. and, it's not a problem for me to remain trusting of god, i just don't trust religions or men.. recently, a member of this forum stated that he remains an active jw, in the family of god's people, wanting to encourage and do good - whilst recognising that the pastoral leaders (the gb) have shipwrecked the faith of many, being unsound scripturally etc, etc.. stop and think about this - the bible says to not follow after those who lie and hurt the faith of "little ones".. the pharisees were accused of traversing over lands and expending much energy to make a single convert - only for that convert to end up worse of than he started off with.. it's one thing to not believe this is the 'truth' and feeling the awful pressure of managing ones life, trying not to lose ones family.. it's quite another thing to declare oneself to be a christian believer of god's jw household, and somehow believe the god of love would use corrupt liars to parade as jesus' brothers in the urgency of last days.

really?

and, to then visibly promote faith in corrupt men, and try to bring converts into a place where the rulership is wrong.. some of us are dying from hurt here.......give me a break..

Island Man

When a JW says:

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

You simply respond by saying:

"Exactly! The organization is imperfect and it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah. I'm glad to see that you finally understand where I'm coming from!"

The idiotic reasoning behind the original JW quote is that one should continue "serving Jehovah" even if the organization fails to live up to what is expected of it. But get this: by "serving Jehovah", what they really mean is blindly serving the corrupt organization that doesn't measure up to what it professes to be, because they equate "serving Jehovah" with being in the organization. So in reality, the JW quote is actually a ridiculous self-contradiction where they simultaneously separate Jehovah from the organization while also equating the two ... all in one sentence! It's as if they're really saying:

"The organization is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with the organization. So even if the organization should fail you, you should not let that stop you from being loyal to the organization because surely the organization will not fail you even if the organization fails you."

Their thinking is so twisted. They're nuts and they're too indoctrinated to see it!

54

The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear in

i've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession.

after researching the issue for several years, i have come to a conclusion/theory that i would love to receive some feedback on.

this theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original nt scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't.

Island Man

Here's something to think about:

We know the name existed in the OT even though there are manuscripts with it removed and replaced with the Hebrew version of Lord. But the OT is a lot older than the NT. There was thus a lot more opportunity to thoroughly remove YHWH from the OT copies without leaving a trace . . . and yet we have OT manuscripts containing YHWH!

Is it reasonable to believe that copyists of the NT succeeded in thoroughly removing YHWH from the NT while failing to do the same for the much older OT? How likely is it that copyists would succeed in totally removing all occurrences of YHWH from all NT copies without so much as one surviving with YHWH? That seems highly improbable. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the name was never in the NT to begin with.

By the time of the NT's writing, it was already the culturally accepted norm to substitute YHWH with Lord. All of the Jewish culture was doing it and all the early christians who initially came from a Jewish background grew up doing it. Even the copies of the septuagint in use at that time had already replaced YHWH with kyrios - never mind the fact that there may have been a minority of copies with YHWH. It certainly was not the norm. So even the argument about NT writers quoting the OT where YHWH is mentioned, is flawed! Why? Because the NT writers were likely quoting from later copies of the septuagint which already had the name replaced with kyrios! It is only natural then, to expect that early Jewish christians - the writers of the NT - would continue the tradition they grew up knowing and practicing, in their NT writings. Remember too that it was considered blasphemous to use the name.

Why would christians go out of their way to use the name and bring persecution on themselves when the bible does not mandate the use of the name? Consider too that the majority of the books of the NT are letters that were read out loud at church meetings. Do you think the authors would write YHWH in them and have the reader at the church meeting accused of blasphemy by some unbelieving Jew who happened to be visiting the meeting?

I think the most logical and objective conclusion that one can arrive at in view of the total absence of any NT manuscripts with YHWH, is that the name was never in the NT to begin with. It is only because of theological bias - their over-fixation on the need to use "Jehovah" - that JWs want to believe that it must have been there. They cannot believe that early christians did not share their unhinged fixation on the name "Jehovah".

19

Since man is unable to create life does this mean

by Crazyguy in

jw
friends

does this mean possible a creator did or does exist.

there is plenty of evidence of a slow evolutionary changes over millions of years and i do not disagree with this.

but again that fact that mankind can not create a living creature from scratch mean there must be a creator?

Island Man

Man cannot create life ... yet. But that has no bearing on whether or not a creator exists.

The processes involved in life sustenance happen at the microscopic scale and this is one of the biggest reasons why we are ignorant of all the factors involved and required to create life. The very small scale at which life's "pixels" exist make it very difficult to study and understand it sufficiently enough to replicate it. We do know a lot about it. But we don't yet know all there is to know about it. But that day will probably come and then we would be able to replicate it. Although I think it is more likely that we would create our own artificial form of life that is less complex and more elegant than what we see in nature.

13

Anyone Know what happened to the Video that's brought down many JWs to Ex-JW land?

by PokerPlayerPhil in

i've been looking for a video done by someone who shows the warning by jesus saying "if anyone comes to you and say's "the appointed time is near" you are to run from them!

two people who left the watchtower said this has been one of the most powerful videos to get inside the heads of really smart elders and witnesses that don't come the regular way.. the gist of the video is the watchtower wrote a book called "the appointed time is near" and this goes against everything jesus christ warned people.

the problem with the watchtower's followers is they need "omens", "portents", "signs" to keep their followers following along their path lead by that dried up old carrot (the end) or (the appointed time).

Island Man

I'm not sure if this is the video you're referring to, but this one is also based on Jesus warning at Luke 21:8 but gives details of Russel's false end time predictions in the book "The time is at hand" before finally revealing the title of the book and the scripture at Luke 21:8. It's done in a powerful way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSYBUifr7Y0

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

Island Man

"The Diamond Rule also has its own set of shortcomings. For example, what if someone's wish is detrimental to his own well-being? Should we treat that person as he/she wants to be treated despite said treatment poses an unquestionable threat to her well-being? it may be a difficult call sometimes.
One rule doesn't fit all, I'd say.
Eden"

I agree. But the same can be said for the golden rule: what if my desire of how to be treated is detrimental to my own well-being? Should I treat others as I want to be treated despite said treatment posing an unquestionable threat to their well-being? The advantage of the Diamond rule over the golden rule, is that of showing personal interest in wishes of others without presuming. But they both have the caveat of harmful wants.

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

Island Man

"Island Man, "treat others the way they would want to be treated."
What if they want to be worshipped as gods?"

That's a fair point that applies equally to the golden rule - what if I want to be worshipped as a god? Should I then go around worshipping others? And then that would also mean that God does not follow the golden rule because he wants worship but refuses to worship others.

19

The multitude that no man can number

by SonoftheTrinity in

how can protection from destruction at armageddon be solely with the jehovah's witnesses when the great multitude is one that no man could number while the jehovah's witnesses put great effort into cooking statistics of how many jws there are worldwide?

the unscriptural scare tactics they use are blatantly insulting to anyone who can read a bible.

Island Man

I am convinced that the author of Revelation intended the "great crowd" to represent gentile christians; and the 144,000, the remnant of Jews who become christians.

Furthermore, the author seems to be saying that the gentile christians are Abraham's seed even though they aren't Jews. He does it by saying the great crowd is without number. He's basically alluding to God's promise to Abraham that his seed would be without number like the stars of the heavens.

The author is revealing that God's promise to Abraham gets fulfilled in a remnant of Jewish christians joined by a vast multitude of gentiles. This is essentially the same message at Romans 11:1-12.

It is also possible that the writer intended the 144,000 and the great crowd to be understood as being one and the same. Why do I say that? Well the early part of Revelation 7 has John hearing the number that were sealed out of every tribe of Israel, immediately followed by him seeing a great crowd of every nation. It is possible that the writer was using this format to reveal to the reader that the 144,000 "Jews" that John heard being sealed actually turns out to be a vast number of people of all nations, by way of a kind of dramatic and unexpected revelation that is contrary to what is expected.

41

"Jehovah's people as a whole can never be corrupted..."

by cappytan in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgds4z-h2i.

transcript below (with key points of interest bolded):.

please open your bibles to phil.

Island Man

He said:

"There’s never a reason to stop serving Jehovah."

This statement contains an implicit bait and switch on the word "Jehovah". It baits "Jehovah" but what is really implied and gets switched around in the minds of indoctrinated JWs is "Watchtower / The Organization / The Faithful and Discreet Slave". Brainwashed JWs are expected - no programmed - to read the statement as:

"There is never a justifiable reason to leave the JW organization."

This is one of the most often used tools of psychological manipulation to get awakening JWs to turn a blind eye to the serious faults of the organization - the kinds of faults that JWs would readily point to in other religions as evidence of them being false and the need for persons in those religions to leave them. So it doesn't matter how corrupt, deceitful and foolish the leadership of the JW organization proves to be; or how false the organization proves to be, you still have to be a loyal follower because "serving Jehovah" is very foolishly and shamelessly self-servingly equated with membership in the organization - the very organization that proves to be false which should logically mean you should leave it as per Revelation's admonition to "get out of her my people!". But this fact gets conveniently ignored when it comes to the glaring sins of the JW organization; but readily applied to all others.

They are such unforgivable deceitful manipulators and hypocrites!

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

Island Man

Here's what's wrong with the golden rule:

Different people like to be treated differently. The way John likes being treated may be an annoyance to me. So if John follows the golden rule by treating me the way he wants to be treated, he would be a pain in the ass to me.

The golden rule ignores human individuality. It leads one to act presumptuously by projecting ones own preferences onto others. The Diamond Rule is superior: "treat others the way they would want to be treated."

Imagine being the guest in the home of someone of some exotic culture and he offers you what is considered the delicacy in his culture and which he loves. With the Golden Rule mindset, your host expects you to love the meal because he loves it and is giving you with the expectation that you will love it too. With that mindset, your host could easily be offended if you genuinely do not like the meal and stop eating after the first bite. The Golden Rule facilitates such taking of offense because it projects your own preferences onto others. By contrast, if the host had the Diamond Rule mindset, he wouldn't presume to project his own likes onto you. He may offer you a small sample of their delicacy to see if you like it, and if you don't he wouldn't take offense because the Diamond Rule acknowledges that we have different preferences and seeks to know the preferences of others instead of presumptuously projecting our own preference onto them.

The Golden Rule has a form of love that proves to be somewhat superficial. The love of the Golden Rule is not genuinely interested in the person - for it does not seek to ascertain the person's preferences so as to know how to treat them. It overlooks this because it is more interested in proving itself righteous and so presumes, egotistically to project the giver's own preference onto the person.

By contrast, the Diamond Rule shows personal interest by ascertaining the preference of the person so as to know how to treat them. It shows genuine personal interest instead of focusing on proving the lover righteous at the expense of overlooking the preferences of the one being loved.

The Golden Rule is proof that the book of Matthew is not the inspired word of a superior all wise God whose thoughts are superior to our own. In fact, the Golden Rule is not even original to the bible but has been expressed by others living before the time of Jesus.

The Golden Rule is what some might call a "deepity" - a pithy saying that has an air of charisma to it but upon closer scrutiny proves to lack an intelligible meaning or the great depth of insight or substance it pretends to have. Charismatic sounding slogans tend to be like that. True wisdom is often very lacking in charismatic appeal.