The OT was written long before the prohibition on using the name YHWH developed. So there are many OT manuscripts that contain YHWH. But by the time of the writing of the NT, the prohibition on vocalizing and even spelling the name YHWH, had already taken firm hold among the Jews. So the Jewish founders of the Christian religion grew up in conformity with this prohibition and thus it is reflected in their NT writings, which are devoid of the name YHWH. Also, when their NT writings quote from OT passages that contain the name YHWH, they are quoting, not from Hebrew copies of the OT that contain YHWH, but from the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT which replaces YHWH with Lord. Thus the NT is devoid of YHWH because it was never in there to begin with.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
-
22
I Think I have Found a Way to Litigate
by Simon Templar ini have been thinking about how the wtb&t society bullies all of its members into submission with the threats they use (by practice), i.e.
“if you do this we will df you and you will be shunned”.
“if you da yourself, we will make an announcement and your friends, relatives and family will abandon you”, etc.
-
-
Island Man
I beg to differ with the prevailing sentiment that it cannot be done. Many are looking at this issue as one of trying to legally force JWs to associate with ex-members. It doesn't have to be that way for it to work.
Right now in many countries there are laws against inciting violent hatred toward groups of people. Such laws do not force everyone in the country to perform acts of kindness toward groups of persons. They only seek to prevent the public dissemination of hateful propaganda against groups.
In a similar way, Watchtower can be called to account for unduly inciting JWs to shun their ex-JW relatives. The crux of the issue is Watchtower inciting the members against their ex-JW family - not forcing JWs to associate with their ex-JW relatives.
JWs should have the right to freely choose whether or not they want to associate with their ex-JW relatives WITHOUT Watchtower inciting them not to and punishing them if they do. Most JWs shun their ex-JW relatives BECAUSE Watchtower tells them to and BECAUSE they face negative consequences if they refuse to comply.
If Watchtower is called to account for its incitement and is legally restricted from such incitements and is barred from punishing members who choose to associate with their ex-JW relatives, then over time conditions will change such that far less JWs will be shunning their ex-JW relatives. But they will still have the freedom - true, unfettered freedom - to do so if they wish. Right now Watchtower is practically coercing JWs to shun their ex-JW relatives so they're not really doing it of their own free will free of all duress.
So I think there is a case to be made but it has to be articulated the right way. It's not about forcing JWs to associate with ex-JW family. It's about punishing and halting Watchtower's use of undue influence to coerce JWs into shunning their ex-JW family. Yes no one can force JWs to associate with who they don't want to. So why does Watchtower get the right to force JWs to shun? It has to work both ways - no forcing either way.
-
30
Just curious about how faithful women are these days. Anybody know?
by Alostpuppydog inso being someone who is not, however still believes around 70% of what the jw's talk about as far as the bible goes, ignoring the fact of no blood transfusions, shunning, etc.
wt doctrines, i got this question.
anybody really know how faithful 'worldly' (i use this term lightly 😉) women are these days?
-
-
Island Man
It has often been said that the most common reason for a JW being disfellowshipped, is fornication. And the ones that get disfellowshipped are only the ones that get found out and were deemed unrepentant.
Don't fool yourself! JWs aren't any more faithful sexually, than members from any other bible-believing church. The JWs are just a little better at hiding their naughty behavior due to the penalty of shunning; and due to the policy of secrecy surrounding judicial committees.
-
24
Shunning & separation from family
by CJxfarmx ini was raised in jw as a child.
my dad was a jw my mom was not, they are divorced now.
i was never baptized or anything but i stopped going once i had the choice at age 12. now i am 41 and my dad will not associate with me, my wife or my 3 kids.
-
-
Island Man
I'm sorry for your loss, though really it's his. You have a family,
he has a culta cult has him -
12
Suspicious Attitude Toward Married Brothers...
by JW_Rogue inthis is kind of different but i just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this.
it seems that younger married brothers are viewed with a certain level of suspicion in the congregation.
it's like the elders can be friendly with everyone in the hall including younger sisters.
-
-
Island Man
"ecclesiocracy". I love that word, schnell! I think that's the word I'm going to start using as a synonym for the JWs' "theocracy" or "theocratic arrangement" when in any conversation with them. And if they complain I can always mention letters from Watchtower's legal department that make mention of the "Ecclesiastical Government of Jehovah's Witnesses."
-
10
Pornography Question
by IMHO inwhy is it ok to look at naked pictures/videos of your wife/husband but porn if you look at another man/woman naked?.
if you happen to divorce your spouse is it then pornography if you look at naked/sex videos/pictures of them?.
-
-
Island Man
Because ... Matthew 5:28. You might as well be asking:
Why is it ok to have sex with your wife/husband but having sex with another man/woman is adultery/fornication?
-
22
I Think I have Found a Way to Litigate
by Simon Templar ini have been thinking about how the wtb&t society bullies all of its members into submission with the threats they use (by practice), i.e.
“if you do this we will df you and you will be shunned”.
“if you da yourself, we will make an announcement and your friends, relatives and family will abandon you”, etc.
-
-
Island Man
Watchtower will say that at your baptism you voluntarily entered into a contract with them to abide by their rules and knowing the consequences that will come to you if you disobey.
They will also say that the decision by family and other JWs to shun you is a personal decision and they cannot force members to associate with anyone. They will say that members are exercising their personal religious convictions when they choose not to associate with you.
I think the best route that can be taken is to use their own literature to show their repeated instructions to members to shun their DFd relatives; and show the penalty that comes to those who refuse to shun DFd ones. You would have to make the case that WT is inciting members to engage in this action rather than the members just coming up with the idea all on their own.
In other words, you would have to use a line of reasoning that is similar to the line of reasoning used to criminalize inciting of hatred toward certain groups. Work on proving that the JW organization and its Governing Body is an extremely influential authority in the lives of JWs and couple this with their instructions to JWs to shun former members.
But it will be hard because religion is involved and states tend to be very wary of doing anything that may be seen by some as trampling on religious freedom. They will tend to err on the side of having your personal rights trampled on than doing anything that can be argued as violating religious freedom.
-
13
Sex & Divorce
by IMHO in1. you can't have sex until your married.. 2. you're not married until you've gone through a legal ceremony.. 3. you get 'unscriptually' (although legally) divorced therefore not 'free' to remarry'.
4. can you still 'scriptually' have sex with your former spouse?.
-
-
Island Man
Interesting scenario. Watchtower will probably say no. They'd probably say that even if you're not scripturally divorced, you're still legally divorced and therefore, legally, not married to each other, so you'll be bringing reproach on Jehovah's name if you're having sex with someone you're not legally married to. They'd say you have to be both legally and scripturally married so that your marriage is honorable before all - both the governmental authorities and Jehovah.
-
-
-
Island Man
If a JW in the US was DFd for voting, would their be a civil rights violation? I know the Civil Rights Act of 65 was more about race and color, but to deny (through threat of punishment by shunning) a citizen the right to vote seems to be on a slippery legal slope...
That's why they don't DF you for voting. Instead, they say that the voting JW disassociated himself by virtue of his action. So they use this technicality to say that they are not sanctioning anyone for voting.
But given that disassociated JWs are treated the same way as disfellowshipped JWs and given that a voting JW is disassociated against his will, I think this issue should be challenged legally.
Maybe awake JWs should vote tomorrow and if their elders call them to a JC or tell them they're disassociated, then the awake JWs should threaten to sue and raise a storm about the legality of punishing someone for exercising their right to vote. See what happens.
-
33
Fifteen years later, I went to the UN in person.
by biblexaminer inof all the things that the watchtower has done wrong, what would you say is the singular most powerful thing that you could point a jw to, to crack their eyes open?
what is the singular thing that can be expressed bluntly and conclusively that might shock a jw to their senses?
if you could only carry one arrow in your quiver on your way to war with watchtower, what would it be?.
-
-
Island Man
I believe that Watchtower's interest in the UN was that they were hoping to curry favor with the UN so that:
(a) They would be spared when the UN turned on religion.
(b) They would be the instrument that Jehovah would use to put his "one thought" in the mind of the UN to attack false religion.