Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
knowing his time was short--he filled mens hearts with hatred all over the earth--thus ww1.
LOL! Yes, another historically illiterate Bible prediction.
Sorry but there was very little hatred during WWI.
Remember that MOST nations went to war ONLY because of their tangled alliances and treaty obligations, not because they hated their enemies. It should be remembered that one person, and one person alone, caused not just WWI but every political and military event from 1914 until this very day: an anarchist named Gabriel Princep, a boy who assassinated Archduke Fedinand. That touched off WWI and the world was never the same. WWI did not start with a massive invasion or some sort of atrocity. No, it started with a single bullet.
In addition, mutiny was common during WWI and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides simply threw down their weapons at the first sign of the enemy and surrendered just to avoid fighting. Entire swathes of the front line refused to fight. In fact, each side would often warn the other when an artillery bombardment was about to occur. Enemies even posed with each other for pictures, they invited each other over to their trenches for dinner if food was scarce on one side, they offered each other medical treatment, they even played soccer together.
It reached a point when the comaraderie between enemies was so great that officers had to order their men to bring back proof that they even went on their assigned missions - such as a piece of German barbed wire. Of course the British simply stole an entire spool of barbed wire and used bits and pieces of that to fake the proof so they wouldn't have to raid German trenches.
WWI was not a war of hatred despite the sometimes horrific death toll. Soldiers on both sides only fought and killed because they had been convinced that the other side was intent on killing them in their turn. In places where this illusion was dispelled, men on both sides did all that they could to avoid killing each other.
All nations had to keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed at home just to guard against mutiny, rebellion, and industrial strikes since no one really wanted to fight.
Look it up ... it's all there in the historical record, and unlike the Bible, these accounts were written by the people who were actually there, huddled in the trenches without even understanding why they were supposed to hate the enemy.
You think you can judge God. Did you ever read the bible?
Yes and yes.
I can judge God in the same way I can judge any fictional character in any work of literature. The fingerprints of a human author is all over God's persona - there isn't a shred of "divine inspiration" to be found anywhere between the two covers of the Bible. God was a thoroughly raunchy character filled with nothing but malice, jealousy, wrath, anger, and violent rage. In fact, he was like most gods worshiped throughout the ages. Just another tribal god like thousands of others before him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjw47
Noahs day--- 8 humans served God--99% mislead--99% false religions
It actually takes me several minutes to wrap my brain around the idea that, yes, there really are people who believe in this bunk. I literally have to lean back in my chair and just marvel at the incredible amount of self-delusion necessary to completely deny how the world really works in favor of some Bronze Age fantasy, a fable that is childishly obvious in being one.
Anyone who can really believe that only 8 people in the entire world - all conveniently members of the same family who all conveniently live in the same place, and that place, conveniently, is the same small stretch of desert where Yahweh has any influence at all - really needs to take a few courses on statistics, probability, and sociology.
All I can say is ... how convenient.
This part of the story alone should cause you to doubt whether this actually happened or if it's just a story trying to teach people that God really IS a genocidal maniac if he doesn't get his way.
The use of impossible hyperbole is a hallmark of fable-writing since hyperbole is often used to make sharp contrasts between two points of view. Fantasy is filled with kingdoms that are entirely good or entirely evil. Good kingdoms have beautiful princesses whereas evil kingdoms have ugly hags and witches. Good kingdoms always do good all the time and evil kingdoms do evil all the time. Good guys wear white or gleaming silver armor whereas bad guys wear black or blackened armor.
If you know the high fantasy genre at all - especially fantasy written for children and designed to teach a moral lesson - you would see all of the heavy parallels between the Noah story and a hundred other morality tales, all of which are replete with hyperbole.
And still you buy into the absolute truth of Noah and his ark hook, line, sinker, fishing pole, fisherman, and even the car the fisherman used to drive there.
Sometimes I wish I could douse people with a bucket of cold water to wake them up from their religion-inspiried fugue state so that, perhaps, they could let go of this literalism and believe in God in a more enlightened way.
Wait a minute - that doesn't make any sense. Adam was perfect until he sinned?
Or ...
Adam was perfect until he wasn't.
But how could someone who is perfect do something that is imperfect? The fact that Adam ever -could- do something that was imperfect made him imperfect from the start. Saying that Adam was perfect until he sinned could be said about everyone - making no one perfect.
No, the fact that Adam could do something imperfect meant he had free will from the start.
Satan/the Devil/Lucifer was created perfect (an angel) but eventually rebelled and so did some of God's other perfect creations (other angels) they had free will as well.
To understand the Biblical use of perfection one needs to understand how perfection is used in the Bible because it is not in the colloquial sense of absolute perfection and if that is how you understand perfection then it is immaterial because the Bible doesn't define it that way for creation.
One does not have to believe in the Bible or in God in order to understand that perfection is relative to the Creator as used in the Bible. One could simply read Mark 10:18 and Psalm 119:96 and get the sense of it.
Your claims are only convincing to people who already belong to your
"organization" (read: "cult"),
Leo Pfeffer, a constitutional lawyer who was a leading legal proponent of the separation of church and state once said, "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."
What's all this "Jehovah" and "Satan" and "perfect"
nonsense?
Jehovah? The Personal Name of the Israelite god of the Hebrew
Bible was never "Jehovah". As Luminous Thought illustrated in passing, it was
almost assuredly "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is a bastardized misunderstanding of how
the consonants YHWH were marked with vowels in the Masoretic Text of the Bible.
Jehovah is the English translation of God's name just as Jesus is even-though neither are an exact match of the original Hebrew or Greek.
From Merriam Webster's Learners Dictionary definition of Jehovah " used as the name of God in the Old Testament of the Bible
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #3068 Ye-oh-vah; Jehovah = "the existing One" 1. the proper name of the one true God
Jehovah (Yahweh) Catholic Encyclopedia The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.). Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai — usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.
YHWH...using standard rules of Hebrew:
Y usually pronounced Ye or Ya
H when appearing in the middle of a word there is a vowel ( usually O)
Some names where we see these syllables of God's name used and pronounced...
Finally the H which is silent at the end of the word
Thus arriving at Ye ho wah in Hebrew or......Jehovah in English
Of note the revised King James Bible has now returned the name of Jehovah to the Old Testament.
Update your citations, please.
Your Catholic online Encyclopedia thinks the Canaanites are "Chanaanites" - which isn't surprising, since the citations they have are all from the 1800s. Kind of like the majority of citations from works by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Your Strong's Concordance has been out of date for many decades now. No scholar alive would use Jehovah, unless they are bowing to superstitious tradition stemming from the KJV usage. Funny how this new superstition concerning the name has arisen, from those people who cannot be bothered to update their Bible or dictionaries.
Your "standard rules of Hebrew" are wrong. "W pronounced 'Wa'"? That's funny. How is a "w" pronounced "wa" as a standard rule of Hebrew? In certain situations, it may be, but not by default. And not when it's a closed syllable with an "h" as the final consonant of the syllable. Why do you assume the "h" was silent? We do not know for sure how an "h" might have been pronounced in that situation, unless it was functioning as a matre lectionis for a long vowel. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis
I promise it's not a hundred years old.
Anyways, information on Yahweh can be found online, and information on Biblical Hebrew can be found by actually learning it or using a modern source. Consulting a 100 year old dictionary or a cult's - yes, cult - literature? Not so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
[
Leo Pfeffer, a constitutional lawyer who was a leading legal proponent of the separation of church and state once said, "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."
That's great for Leo - but the standard view of a "cult" has been well-known for ages, and some evidence can be seen when an organization engages in certain behaviors (try Wikipedia) that control their members lives to a much more sever degree than a standard "denomination"- some examples being "shunning", the control of what they read, how they study, who they associate with, etc. etc.
Another interesting thing about cults is that their members usually vociferously deny that they are in a cult, since the cult takes great care to instill in them feelings of persecution and the idea that all others are wrong and will try to "pervert" them.
Again, I have a feeling we have danced this dance before. And I think we're getting off topic, don't you?
If you have anything to add concerning the OP's thread, that would be nice. Otherwise, we've all heard this before and as far as I know - it has convinced nobody with access to this forum, and internet access to dictionaries and grammars online that are relatively up to date.
Not this again....
Haven't we dance this dance before with your out of date sources?
Update your citations, please.
Your Catholic online Encyclopedia thinks the Canaanites are "Chanaanites" - which isn't surprising, since the citations they have are all from the 1800s. Kind of like the majority of citations from works by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Your Strong's Concordance has been out of date for many decades now. No scholar alive would use Jehovah, unless they are bowing to superstitious tradition stemming from the KJV usage. Funny how this new superstition concerning the name has arisen, from those people who cannot be bothered to update their Bible or dictionaries.
Your "standard rules of Hebrew" are wrong. "W pronounced 'Wa'"? That's funny. How is a "w" pronounced "wa" as a standard rule of Hebrew? In certain situations, it may be, but not by default. And not when it's a closed syllable with an "h" as the final consonant of the syllable. Why do you assume the "h" was silent? We do not know for sure how an "h" might have been pronounced in that situation, unless it was functioning as a matre lectionis for a long vowel. See here: Mater lectionis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I promise it's not a hundred years old.
Anyways, information on Yahweh can be found online, and information on Biblical Hebrew can be found by actually learning it or using a modern source. Consulting a 100 year old dictionary or a cult's - yes, cult - literature? Not so good.
That's great for Leo - but the standard view of a "cult" has been well-known for ages, and some evidence can be seen when an organization engages in certain behaviors (try Wikipedia) that control their members lives to a much more sever degree than a standard "denomination"- some examples being "shunning", the control of what they read, how they study, who they associate with, etc. etc.
Another interesting thing about cults is that their members usually vociferously deny that they are in a cult, since the cult takes great care to instill in them feelings of persecution and the idea that all others are wrong and will try to "pervert" them.
Again, I have a feeling we have danced this dance before. And I think we're getting off topic, don't you?
If you have anything to add concerning the OP's thread, that would be nice. Otherwise, we've all heard this before and as far as I know - it has convinced nobody with access to this forum, and internet access to dictionaries and grammars online that are relatively up to date.
And still the updated King James Bible has returned the name Jehovah in those nearly 7000 places where it was removed.
A quote from the committee (Divine Name Publishers) that produced the revised version:
"The Divine Name Publishers chose to use the form Jehovah in the DNKJB in its printed version because that is the form that was established for the English speaking world by the Authorized King James Bible itself. There are other appropriate ways to write or vocalize YHWH other than Jehovah, such as Yahweh. Yahweh is highly regarded as an appropriate and respectful way to refer to the Almighty God if a person wants to drop into the Hebrew language when referring to YHWH. In our opinion it is humiliating to promote arrogance by preferring Yahweh as if it is a more certain way of translating the Tetragrammton than is Jehovah—as if there is no uncertainty about the rendering Yahweh and as if Jehovah is without any basis. The whole truth about Yahweh and Jehovah is that in both cases there has been endless conjecture about how to render YHWH—and as is required of all human endeavors, one must stop handwringing and questioning if there is to be any accomplishment. Indeed, we would not have any translations at all if translators did not make a choice. What is the essential guide translators use? Primarily it is that the distinction between Yahweh and Jehovah is that Yahweh is an effort to vocalize YHWH as if we are trying to sound more Hebrew-ish and Jehovah is a vocalization of YHWH acceptable to English speakers. Why do we say 'acceptable?' In the case of all Hebrew names from the Bible, the convention of most English language Bibles is to consistantly translate Hebrew names into their English counterparts that the King James Bible has made second nature to us. For Hebrew names uncommonly used we see that many translations may choose to render them more phonetically in line with the actual Hebrew characters from the text. The bottom line is that since Jehovah is familiar to all devotees of the King James Bible text it is the form that we use.
I can judge God in the same way I can judge any fictional character in any work of literature. The fingerprints of a human author is all over God's persona - there isn't a shred of "divine inspiration" to be found anywhere between the two covers of the Bible. God was a thoroughly raunchy character filled with nothing but malice, jealousy, wrath, anger, and violent rage. In fact, he was like most gods worshiped throughout the ages. Just another tribal god like thousands of others before him.
It actually takes me several minutes to wrap my brain around the idea that, yes, there really are people who believe in this bunk. I literally have to lean back in my chair and just marvel at the incredible amount of self-delusion necessary to completely deny how the world really works in favor of some Bronze Age fantasy, a fable that is childishly obvious in being one.
Anyone who can really believe that only 8 people in the entire world - all conveniently members of the same family who all conveniently live in the same place, and that place, conveniently, is the same small stretch of desert where Yahweh has any influence at all - really needs to take a few courses on statistics, probability, and sociology.
All I can say is ... how convenient.
This part of the story alone should cause you to doubt whether this actually happened or if it's just a story trying to teach people that God really IS a genocidal maniac if he doesn't get his way.
The use of impossible hyperbole is a hallmark of fable-writing since hyperbole is often used to make sharp contrasts between two points of view. Fantasy is filled with kingdoms that are entirely good or entirely evil. Good kingdoms have beautiful princesses whereas evil kingdoms have ugly hags and witches. Good kingdoms always do good all the time and evil kingdoms do evil all the time. Good guys wear white or gleaming silver armor whereas bad guys wear black or blackened armor.
If you know the high fantasy genre at all - especially fantasy written for children and designed to teach a moral lesson - you would see all of the heavy parallels between the Noah story and a hundred other morality tales, all of which are replete with hyperbole.
And still you buy into the absolute truth of Noah and his ark hook, line, sinker, fishing pole, fisherman, and even the car the fisherman used to drive there.
Sometimes I wish I could douse people with a bucket of cold water to wake them up from their religion-inspiried fugue state so that, perhaps, they could let go of this literalism and believe in God in a more enlightened way.
But alas ...
You will know soon miss--we are in the last minutes of the last days and God made this promise at least 30 times in Ezekial----They will have to know, I am Jehovah.----and all will know soon.
And still the updated King James Bible has returned the name Jehovah in those nearly 7000 places where it was removed.
A quote from the committee (Divine Name Publishers) that produced the revised version:
"The Divine Name Publishers chose to use the form Jehovah in the DNKJB in its printed version because that is the form that was established for the English speaking world by the Authorized King James Bible itself. There are other appropriate ways to write or vocalize YHWH other than Jehovah, such as Yahweh. Yahweh is highly regarded as an appropriate and respectful way to refer to the Almighty God if a person wants to drop into the Hebrew language when referring to YHWH. In our opinion it is humiliating to promote arrogance by preferring Yahweh as if it is a more certain way of translating the Tetragrammton than is Jehovah—as if there is no uncertainty about the rendering Yahweh and as if Jehovah is without any basis. The whole truth about Yahweh and Jehovah is that in both cases there has been endless conjecture about how to render YHWH—and as is required of all human endeavors, one must stop handwringing and questioning if there is to be any accomplishment. Indeed, we would not have any translations at all if translators did not make a choice. What is the essential guide translators use? Primarily it is that the distinction between Yahweh and Jehovah is that Yahweh is an effort to vocalize YHWH as if we are trying to sound more Hebrew-ish and Jehovah is a vocalization of YHWH acceptable to English speakers. Why do we say 'acceptable?' In the case of all Hebrew names from the Bible, the convention of most English language Bibles is to consistantly translate Hebrew names into their English counterparts that the King James Bible has made second nature to us. For Hebrew names uncommonly used we see that many translations may choose to render them more phonetically in line with the actual Hebrew characters from the text. The bottom line is that since Jehovah is familiar to all devotees of the King James Bible text it is the form that we use.
hd4me, you do realize that the King James Bible has not changed, right? This is a single publisher that has taken the text of the King James Bible (which is in the public domain, anyone can publish it), and inserted Jehovah into the test in the Old Testament. This is simply a single theologically motivated publisher that has ignored linguistic scholarship and historical context and made a change they deem theologically important.
In that respect it is no different than the Concordant Literal Translation refusing to translate Aionios as eternal, because it contradicts with their theology.
hd4me, you do realize that the King James Bible has not changed, right? This is a single publisher that has taken the text of the King James Bible (which is in the public domain, anyone can publish it), and inserted Jehovah into the test in the Old Testament. This is simply a single theologically motivated publisher that has ignored linguistic scholarship and historical context and made a change they deem theologically important.
In that respect it is no different than the Concordant Literal Translation refusing to translate Aionios as eternal, because it contradicts with their theology.
-NoCapo
Men had 0 right to remove Gods personal name from the ot in nearly 6800 places--its a great atrocity to do it or to not put the name back---One would have to love Jehovah to put it back where he inspired it and wants it there. Isnt it strange, in a satan ruled world, putting Gods name back, by the ones who loved him enough( NWT) is condemned by those who didn't have the love.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
