 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Silver Surfer
King Kong
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 2963
Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:45 pm Post subject: I'm a Jehovah's Witness....and a Baptist...and etc,.....etc. |
 |
|
A True Christian has many names that can identify themselves with.
Most know me as a 7th Day Adventist. But it is also correct to refer to me, as a Jehovah's Witness, as well as a Baptist, and any other name the Bible makes reference to.
God only sees 2 classes of people.
Those who are truely seeking God...to know his will for themselves.
And, those who are not seeking God , and have no interest in him at all.
There are many people who call themselves Christians....go to church....who will be lost in the end !
Also, a person's backround and culture must be considered. That is one of the reasons that God says to judge no man.
Only God understands where a person is, in their spiritual walk, in this life.
God will bring about circumstances to bring a person into contact with someone who will further their knowledge of God, as a result of that contact.
To call anyone a member of a 'cult', is in effect judging them...as well as cutting the person off from bringing them around, to the truth of what the Bible really says.
_________________
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
apostonaut
Tadpole
Joined: 19 Dec 2003
Posts: 17
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi there,
YOU SAID:
"To call anyone a member of a 'cult', is in effect judging them...as well as cutting the person off from bringing them around, to the truth of what the Bible really says."
Do you believe that cults exist? Branch Davidians, for example? Or Heaven's Gate? If one was a member of such a group, would you not call them a "member of a cult"?
I don't know much about 7th Day Adventists. Do you "disfellowship" persons? Do you have "apostates" from your church? It seems to me that these are acts of judging, wouldn't you agree?
Kind regards,
Ap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SOOO...If a person is 'truly seeking God' by their standards, and by the words of their mouths. Yet they believe that God is a created being who has 'god sex' all day long with his 'god wife', who make little 'god children' and if you follow the teachings of this church you too can become like him, having 'god sex' all day long with your 'god wife' so that you can have 'god children' this person is just as right as a person who studies the word of God and knows that this myth is false? IS that what you are saying Present Truth? So it is wrong for me to say that these people are believing a lie, and wrong to call them a cult, because I would be 'judging' them? Perhaps you better read Matthew 7 again, it does not say you are not to judge at all. And we are given guidelines to determine whether or not these people are true in their teachings or not...
If this is true, if this is the way the Bible teaches, why in the world have you wasted EVERYONE'S time with your repeated nonsense about having to follow the Sabbath? If you could rightly be called a Jehovah's Witness or a Baptist, both of which DO NOT worship on Saturday, why would you continue to spread 'your' word about the Sabbath regulation for the approval of God?
I think you have clearly gone over the edge on this one...a time in which I will not persue you, and let you fall, have fun...
_________________
The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike.
C. S. Lewis
Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Location: home, wa, usa
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: I'm a Jehovah's Witness....and a Baptist...and etc,..... |
|
|
| Silver Surfer wrote: | A True Christian has many names that can identify themselves with.
Most know me as a 7th Day Adventist. But it is also correct to refer to me, as a Jehovah's Witness, as well as a Baptist, and any other name the Bible makes reference to. |
Adventism has long born the stigma of being called a cult. Since Seventh-day Adventism does officially accept the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity (the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the Trinity, Christ's true deity, His bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith) it should not be classified as a cult. One cannot be a true Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc., and be a practicing Christian in the biblical sense of the word; but it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and a true follower of Jesus, despite certain distinctive Adventist doctrines which are unbiblical.
This does not endorse the entire theological system of Adventism, since a portion of it is definitely out of the mainstream of historic Christian theology. This is seen in their acceptance of Sabbatarianism, extinction of the soul upon death, and their belief that the destiny of the wicked is annihilation.
Mr. Joseph Bates (1792-1872), a retired sea captain and a convert to "Millerism" then began to promote the idea of Jesus moving into the heavenly sanctuary. He published a pamphlet which greatly influenced James (1821-1881) and Ellen White (1827-1915). It is these three who were the driving force behind the SDA movement.
Numerous reports state that Ellen G. White (1827-1915) saw visions from an early age. Such was the case shortly after the Great Disappointment. Mrs. White claimed to see in a vision of a narrow path where an angel was guiding Adventists. Subsequent visions resulted in interpretations of the three angels in Rev. 14:6-11 as being 1843-1844 as the hour of God's judgment; the fall of Babylon signified by Adventists leaving various churches, and admonitions against Sunday worship.
E. G. White prophesied the world would end in 1843, 1844, 1845 & 1851: "Now time is almost finished, (1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn in months." White blames her failed prophecy on the members of the Seventh-day Adventist church! "Thus the work was hindered, and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history."
In another vision she discovered that women should wear short dresses with pants and she and her sister followers dressed this way for eight years. But the ridiculous custom has now been abandoned.
One of the unwritten stories in Adventist history is the influence that James White had in forming the ideas and sentences that came out under Ellen's name and pen. Although not noted as a literary writer or as a theologian, James did produce four published books. Two of these were Life Incidents in Connection with the Great Advent Movement, as Illustrated by the Three Angels of Revelation XIV, published in 1868, and in 1875 Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller: Gathered from his Memoirs by the Late Sylvester Bliss, and from Other Sources. Both books were almost totally copied from others. The one on William Miller was taken from Sylvester Bliss (who in 1853 had written Memoirs of William Miller). The theology of Life Incidents was copied substantially from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews. Neither of these books was ever printed again under the name of James White as far as is known.
But they were indeed reprinted under another name, that of Ellen G. White, his wife, a few years after his death in 1881-but under the title The Great Controversy (1884). And this production was sold to the believers and the world as the work of Ellen and the angels. Although it had been doctored and padded with other material in the usual manner, clearly it was material that had been published earlier under the name of James. What the people were not told was that the heart of this new revelation had been printed sixteen years before, and that the theme and thesis had been over literally and liberally into Ellen's new Great Controversy.
One reason is now clear why much of the information in the 1884 edition of The Great Controversy could not have been included in the earlier works of Ellen on the same subject (Spiritual Gifts, published 185864). James had not yet gotten around to copying it from J. N Andrews; so it was not available to Ellen at the time. The 1888 and 1911 editions of The Great Controversy went back to James White's compilation of doctrines and events and picked up even more of his findings and ideas.
Below is a section of a book she "wrote" for her followers and following it is the original book it came from (Daniel March, Night Scenes in the Bible; Philadelphia: Zeigler, McCurdy & Co., 1823; p88) on the right.. Note the similarities!!
"If you refuse to believe until every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of doubt is removed, you will never believe. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith. Faith rests upon evidence, not demonstration. The Lord requires us to obey the voice of duty, when there are other voices all around us urging us to pursue an opposite course. It requires earnest attention from us to distinguish the voice which speaks from God."
And the source book-
"We must not defer our obedience till every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of mistake is removed. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith, for faith rests upon probability, not demonstration.... We must obey the voice of duty when there are many other voices crying against it, and it requires earnest heed to distinguish the one which speaks for God."
Research definitely concludes Ellen G. White to be both a plagerizer and false prophet. Much of this is hidden from the SDA followers, for obvious reasons.
I point this out only to show that your comment is far from correct. Christians, in the true useage of the word, are those that adhere to essential Christian doctrine and fundamental beliefs of the faith. Many groups now use the term Christian to attract new members and when the new members reach the point of receiving the group's doctrines, find themselves far from what they understood Christianity to be. This is a favorite tactic of many new-age cults.
_________________
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15
Yours in Christ with much love,
Ron
http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5141
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:36 pm Post subject: I'm a Jehovah's Witness....and a Baptist...and etc,..... |
|
|
Ron, all I can say is "Wow" 
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Location: home, wa, usa
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: I'm a Jehovah's Witness....and a Baptist...and etc,..... |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | Ron, all I can say is "Wow" |
I know you are admin and relatively neutral, but I do wish you could expand. Was that a "Wow, you crossed the line here" or "Wow, you should not have posted that" or "Wow, good post" or...
I am curious about what others think of the content of my posts, even admin sorts!! 
_________________
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15
Yours in Christ with much love,
Ron
http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5141
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:43 pm Post subject: I'm a Jehovah's Witness....and a Baptist...and etc,..... |
|
|
Ron I mean Wow, I've never heard all that explained before
It was very informitve.
Ron, I'll let you know when you've crossed the line! 
OK?
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannabe
Sea Monkey
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2003 10:25 pm Post subject: religion |
|
|
| The Roman Catholic (universal) church "invented" the name "Jehovah, as well as establishing their organization and many others around you (universal) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAFAEL_THE_ANGEL
Not So Newbie
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:43 am Post subject: Re: religion |
|
|
| wannabe wrote: | | The Roman Catholic (universal) church "invented" the name "Jehovah, as well as establishing their organization and many others around you (universal) |
Alright I posted this in another forum, I think it's good enough to repeat here though:
Wow, you really don't know your stuff.
Okay so check it out, God's name is spelled with these letters: YHWH. This we all agree on. Now comes the debate, how do you pronounce it? And why does no one call God by this name but namely Jehovah's Witnesses and rarely Jews themselves?
Okay, firstly on why the Jews stopped using the name: they created a superstition that no one had the perfect lips to say Gods perfect name, and since we are all imperfect because of Adam and Eve's initial sin, we shouldn't say his name. Also the commandment of not using his name in vain, that would certainly make you very aware of when you said it wouldn't it?
On pronunciation: it surprises me so much that the common one taken for YHWH today is Yahweh, because this is not even the spelling using Hebrew vowel points. When Jews began inserting the vowel points to change the name to mean Lord instead of a simple name, the initial and primary pronunciation was lost.
However we do have this pronounciation, if I could I'd use the Hebrew characters, because the English equivalents are terribly misconstrued: Yehvhah. Allow me to explain.
First understand the names of the letters: Iod (also commonly known as Yod), He', Vau (also known as Waw), and ending with He'. Now if you speak Spanish, German, French, or Latin, you may be successfull in understanding the correct pronunciation; the sad truth is English has no equivalents for the correct pronunciations. Spanish is probably the most common of any of the latter so I'll use that one to explain.
The letter Yod is spelled by some scholars as Iod. Using Latin pronunciations (or Spanish, since it is rooted in Latin) you'd notice that pronouncing Iod makes a 'Y' sound between the I and the O. IO = eeyoh. The result being eeyohd from Iod. Also softening the D as the Spanish D. The initial I sound of Iod is actually almost mute and silent, if you are familiar with music I like to use the analogy of 'grace notes'; it could be referred to as a pre-sound. Making the mute I (ee) sound in the deep of your throat before creating the dipthong (two vowels put together) with the O to make the remaining Y sound. I----> O dh... Once you get the hang of it you begin to understand why people just spell it as Yod, but essentially you begin to also understand that it suffers the truthful and first pronunciation of the letter.
You have to understand that the sounds are softened like spanish, this is CRUCIAL for understanding how to pronounce the letter everyone refers to incorrectly as W. This letter is pronounced like the spanish V. Ask a Mexican or Spanish speaker to pronounce 'cow' and 'beer'. Cow is spelled 'vaca' and beer is spelled 'cervesa'; but some bilingual dialects of Spanish recently started pronouncing beer as 'cerbesa', similarly with cow as 'baca', but this is incorrect. This confusion comes from the modernization of 'hard' consonents, mainly from English. The Hebrew letter W should be pronounced with a Spanish soft 'v', where the teeth never touch the lips, nor do the lips touch eachother to create the sound; similarly it could be seen as a very soft B, like the soft form of the Hebrew letter 'Beth'. This sound is not manifested in any surviving modern language today by any symbol, thus we can only give equivalents with explanations and by adding an H to represent a 'softening'. Thus the Hebrew letter for W should actually be pronounced as 'Vhau' (compare with 'Bhau); the vowel pronunciation in the letter being similar the English word 'Vow' (to swear).
Putting all this together and you have Iohvhah (keeping the original vowels of the letters used). However with the vowel points modified, the Hebrews began to pronounce them with the vowel points: Shevha' (for the Iod) and Qamets (for the Vhau). Now Shevha is pronounced like the Spanish short (normal) 'e': like the 'e' in 'memory'. Qamets is pronounced as a long 'a': like the 'a' in 'awestruck'. So you'd have the pronunciation of 'Yehvhah'. But remembering the initial I sound of Yod and you'd have 'Iehvhah. Thus, in Latin, as is said in Indianna Jones (great movie btw) Jehovah is spelled with an I: as Iehovah.
So you see when you put together the Hebrew vowel point version of God's name in plain contexts as Iehvhah, all you got to do is put an O before the 'vhau' for the English translation. From Iod and shevha' you get 'Je' from the letter He' you get the stopping H, having the syllable 'Jeh'. From vhau and qamets you have 'va', and ending again with the letter He', you have 'vah'. So you'd end up with Jehvah. But 'Jehvah' doesn't exactly have an 'English' ring to it, add an O to symbolize the separation of the two syllables and you get 'Jehovah'. Hardly something imagined by Catholic invention, but actually a pretty darn precise version of God's name as the Tetragrammaton into... you guessed it, ENGLISH.
And if Jehovah's Witnesses should be Yahweh's Witnesses, then guess what, you'd have to rewrite every English translated bible to account for the change of J to Y, because the Hebrew Y was translated as the English J.
If Jehovah were to become Yahweh, then Judah would have to become Yeudah.
Similarly these would all have to change:
Joab to Yoab
Jonah to Yonah
Joseph to Yoseif
Jacob to Ya'aqob
Joppa to Yawfo
Isaac to Yitschaq
Jeroboam to Yarobam
Jordan to Yardan
Jeshanah to Yeshanah
and Jethro to Yithro
So to think Jehovah's Witnesses should change their names to Yahweh's Witnesses is a very ... well I hate to be mean, but 'ignorant' thing to do. And in the end Jehovah is the inflection of an 'idea' of the name of God, and that's what really matters to them.
It was also discovered in old scrolls that scribes continued to write the Tetragrammaton in the Greek Scriptures (or New Testatament) in the first centuries C.E.. The Hebrew YHWH was still written in the original Hebrew script within the surrounding Greek script. Scribes later found this confusing, especially once it got into the hands of later scribes who knew Greek but no Hebrew. Taking after the Jewish superstition of pronouncing Adonai in every place the Tetragramatton (aka YHWH) was encountered, meaning 'Lord'. So in fact they replaced it with the Greek equivalent 'Kyrios' from 'Theos' meaning 'God'.
'I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word." (John 17:4-6)
Jesus was very anxious to make his Father's name glorified. Why aren't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:39 am Post subject: Huh? |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Hebrew YHWH was still written in the original Hebrew script within the surrounding Greek script. Scribes later found this confusing, especially once it got into the hands of later scribes who knew Greek but no Hebrew. Taking after the Jewish superstition of pronouncing Adonai in every place the Tetragramatton (aka YHWH) was encountered, meaning 'Lord'. So in fact they replaced it with the Greek equivalent 'Kyrios' from 'Theos' meaning 'God'. |
This claim that all the extant copies (more than 5000) in the original Greek have been corrupted by copiests who systematically removed YHWH and inserted Kyrios is without merit. Note they did not remove YHWH from the Old Testament. It appears about 7000 times in the OT.
So we have a choice, buy into a conspiracy theory, that succeeded in diverse lands to alter all the original Greek copies within the timeframe, before 450 AD from which the earliest copies date. Or we can accept the obvious, that the writers of the NT, under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit wrote kyrios when referring to OT Hebrew verses that contain, in Hebrew, YHWH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannabe
Sea Monkey
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:43 am Post subject: IN the name |
|
|
Greetings Rafael,
Whats "in" a name?
The 'meaning' of the message being sent to deliver to the people.
A Prefix and a Suffix.
The vowel points were placed between the letters of His name so the reader wouold read Adonai or Elohim, and not speak His name.
So the "so called" confusion came in when the texts were all properly vowel pointed but the vowel points for His name were inbetween His letters and not above or below.
Who is partly responsible for the manipulation of "vowel pointing"?
The Roman Catholics.
I would like to ask you two questions:
How would you say 'HalleluYah'?
Whats IN the name of "Jehovah"?
(refering to the meaning of the pre fix and suffix that makes up the message being delivered to the people) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAFAEL_THE_ANGEL
Not So Newbie
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:42 am Post subject: Re: IN the name |
|
|
| wannabe wrote: | The vowel points were placed between the letters of His name so the reader wouold read Adonai or Elohim, and not speak His name.
So the "so called" confusion came in when the texts were all properly vowel pointed but the vowel points for His name were inbetween His letters and not above or below. |
I'm not sure what you mean by 'above or below' because vowel points 'above and below' are all vowel points. Cholem is always on top, that's how you identify it, the rest are below, and a shureq is in the center.
And about your claim that the Catholic Church is responsible for vowel points, I have seen no evidence of this as of yet. If this is true please present some facts. But as far as I know it was Jewish scribes that created vowel points so proper pronunciation would not be completely lost; and that's according to my readings and studies, and the history channel (though they have been known not to show all the evidence and state all the facts).
| wannabe wrote: |
I would like to ask you two questions:
How would you say 'HalleluYah'?
Whats IN the name of "Jehovah"?
(refering to the meaning of the pre fix and suffix that makes up the message being delivered to the people) |
Well according to the rule of shevha', the 'e' would be silent because it's preceeded with a short vowel. Thus it should be pronounced: Hallu Iah [Yah] (It is two seperate words). But there are two L's (or lamedh's) placed in the word. This would make it an odd thing to pronounce as Halluyah, thus it is pronounced Haleluyah. So actually the English is actually right on with translation as far as I know.
And Jehovah means 'To Cause to Become'. This would mean he is a God who created himself. Sort of like Decarte's 'I think therefore I am'. In his name we know he is the one true God because only one person could have such a name that says "I made myself". Whereas Jesus' name means 'salvation'. And btw, God's name is not based solely off a prefix and a suffix, otherwise there would be no root in the name and thus you could not have a word to begin with since it is only two syllables long: YH and VH.
And on your comment about it being read as Elohim, well that's wrong. Elohim is spelled with the Hebrew letters ALHYM (the A is a gutteral and takes the place of a silent 'placing' letter to allow for the sound of a vowel, in this case 'chatef seghol' or short 'e').
Also, the Hebrew version of Jesus' name as Yeshua means 'Jehovah is salvation'.
| Van wrote: | | This claim that all the extant copies (more than 5000) in the original Greek have been corrupted by copiests who systematically removed YHWH and inserted Kyrios is without merit. Note they did not remove YHWH from the Old Testament. It appears about 7000 times in the OT. |
Actually we have evidence and if I had hosting on the internet and had the patience to hookup my new scanner I'd show you the scrolls in which this was found. But anyway it's true and sadly can't be denied, there's evidence and that's that. They were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dated back far enough to thoroughly put all translations that were copied back in the day into great question.
And a very good note you make about the Old Testament retaining God's name 7,000 times. This only strengthens the argument that it's a very odd anomaly that somehow the name just got up and walked away in the Greek Scriptures. Of course the Hebrew Scriptures didn't remove the name because it was ALL HEBREW. But I could imagine myself as an olden Greek scribe looking at these older copies and thinking to myself "What the hell are these Hebrew characters doing in an entirely Greek manuscript? Why don't we just put down the Greek version of this YHWH dude?" Well guess what, Greek doesn't have a Y or W equivalent (the W being closer to V). Again the letters are Yod and Vhau, well Greek has the letter Ypsilon, but that's pronounced: Oopsilon; and there is simply no V (or W for that matter) equivalent either. In fact English is closer to pronouncing the name more correcly than Greek due to the fact Greek simply has no letters to make equivalents with. So if you're a Greek scribe and you have no way of properly even translating the name correctly what's the next best thing? The next best thing would be to translate the 'meaning', and since it was God's name the meaning would be 'God'. Thus Kyrios derived from 'Theos', which means 'God'.
By this point a dramatic 'TUM TUM TUM' sound should be ringing in the background behind you, if it's not, than it's just a little imaginative picture I like to paint knowing that I know how it really goes. If you believe God's name would be written 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and not mentioned once in the Greek, than you have another thing coming; and I'll tell you what that is, it's historical inaccuracy and therefore not true.
I'm gonna say this: JW's aren't 100% correct on interpreting all the Bible as the absolute truth to how everything is gonna play out. They do think they are very special among God's people, and I agree there is some merit to that; but the truth of everything is, if you are a good person and have embraced Christ as your savior, you're a lot closer to being saved than someone who follows a false prophet like Muhammed. But there's a lot of things though that mainstream Christians just aren't doing right, and that's the truth. And I mean simple things. But I'm hungry and I'll get to that later.
Look, on the Day of Judgement we're all gonna be in the same boat. We're all gonna have to relocate due to famine, war, floods, earthquakes and all kinds of catostrophic events. When that happens the true Christian congregations will gather to God's mountain. And when that happens he's gonna tell us precisely what we've been getting wrong and what we've being doing right.
I'm not saying you're not saved because you don't know Jehovah; I'm just saying you're making yourself secondary to those that know his name because they cared enough to find out the truth. Just remember this, the father of all lies is Satan.
"Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie." (Revelation 22:15) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5141
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannabe
Sea Monkey
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: IN the name |
|
|
| RAFAEL_THE_ANGEL wrote: | | wannabe wrote: | The vowel points were placed between the letters of His name so the reader wouold read Adonai or Elohim, and not speak His name.
So the "so called" confusion came in when the texts were all properly vowel pointed but the vowel points for His name were inbetween His letters and not above or below. |
You said:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'above or below' because vowel points 'above and below' are all vowel points. Cholem is always on top, that's how you identify it, the rest are below, and a shureq is in the center.
wannabe:
When it came to the Almightys name in hebrew (YHWH of course are just english letters repsenting the sound of "similiar" Hebrew letters) They knew His name, that is why HIS NAME WAS NEVER VOWEL POINTED. They (Greeks/Romans) according to history, they did not understand how to vocalize His name with the vowel points stuck INSIDE His name and not above or below. The points INSIDE the letters of His name were taken from the vowel points that was used for Adonai and Elohim. The masorites stuck the vowel points from these TITLES to warn the reader not to speak His name when in the "classroom" but to read the titles instead,
coming up with YeHoWa/iH.
You said:
And about your claim that the Catholic Church is responsible for vowel points, I have seen no evidence of this as of yet. If this is true please present some facts. But as far as I know it was Jewish scribes that created vowel points so proper pronunciation would not be completely lost; and that's according to my readings and studies, and the history channel (though they have been known not to show all the evidence and state all the facts).
wannabe:
Who do you think brought the religion called "Jehovahs Witnesses" to the states?
The Orthodox "Jews" that contributed to the Hebrew redeemer's execution were also "joined" with the Greeks and Romans to "go along to get along" partly so the "company" they were living with, would not kill them, yes, the same ones that you claim properly carried over His name were the same ones that had the Hebrews executed. These Orthodox Jews and Greeks/Romans considered the herbews a lower standard of the human race, and yet people's way of thinking still believe they did the best job they could in carrying over a name of a hebrew individual that they despised.
| wannabe wrote: |
I would like to ask you two questions:
How would you say 'HalleluYah'?
Whats IN the name of "Jehovah"?
(refering to the meaning of the pre fix and suffix that makes up the message being delivered to the people) |
You said:
Well according to the rule of shevha', the 'e' would be silent because it's preceeded with a short vowel. Thus it should be pronounced: Hallu Iah [Yah] (It is two seperate words). But there are two L's (or lamedh's) placed in the word. This would make it an odd thing to pronounce as Halluyah, thus it is pronounced Haleluyah. So actually the English is actually right on with translation as far as I know.
wannabe:
'Hallelu" is a hebrew phrase that means 'sing unto/praise', and who are they telling to sing unto? YAH. This part of His name is in almost every "biblical" name before the "lying scribes" took place.
you said:
And Jehovah means 'To Cause to Become'. This would mean he is a God who created himself. Sort of like Decarte's 'I think therefore I am'. In his name we know he is the one true God because only one person could have such a name that says "I made myself". Whereas Jesus' name means 'salvation'. And btw, God's name is not based solely off a prefix and a suffix, otherwise there would be no root in the name and thus you could not have a word to begin with since it is only two syllables long: YH and VH.
wannabe:
His name is "set apart" (qodesh not holy) His name is not a word. "Jehovah" does not mean "to cause to become", though the witnesses are being misled to believe that.
The 'Almighty of the Hebrews' name was given from a verb in the language HE CHOSE to give, this verb carried "self existance", His name is "alive". With the removal and twisting of letters, you know longer have the correct "identity" which includes the meaning of that specific name given BY THE ALMIGHTY HIMSELF, This is called IDENTITY THEFT. The name "Jehovah" was "formed" and given by man, NOT the Creator,and in certain minds they actually believe the cause of this name is the same.
You said:
And on your comment about it being read as Elohim, well that's wrong. Elohim is spelled with the Hebrew letters ALHYM (the A is a gutteral and takes the place of a silent 'placing' letter to allow for the sound of a vowel, in this case 'chatef seghol' or short 'e').
wannabe,
you are incorrect, the A is an "aleph", the gutteral sound you are refering to is the 'Ayin', this symbol is an "eye", in the scriptures, there are many verses refering to this Ayin as the "eyes" of the Almighty. This exact same symbol/letter is in the name of the Redeemer. The Aleph is another big "no no" when the scribes decided to "switch" them.
You said:
Also, the Hebrew version of Jesus' name as Yeshua means 'Jehovah is salvation'.
wannabe:
There is NO "version" of the name given by the Almighty Himself, in which He has given to man that vocalizes His name as well, that can redeem the people. There is only one.
You said:
| Van wrote: | | This claim that all the extant copies (more than 5000) in the original Greek have been corrupted by copiests who systematically removed YHWH and inserted Kyrios is without merit. Note they did not remove YHWH from the Old Testament. It appears about 7000 times in the OT. |
Actually we have evidence and if I had hosting on the internet and had the patience to hookup my new scanner I'd show you the scrolls in which this was found. But anyway it's true and sadly can't be denied, there's evidence and that's that. They were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dated back far enough to thoroughly put all translations that were copied back in the day into great question.
And a very good note you make about the Old Testament retaining God's name 7,000 times.
wannabe:
that was someone elses post.
You said:
This only strengthens the argument that it's a very odd anomaly that somehow the name just got up and walked away in the Greek Scriptures. Of course the Hebrew Scriptures didn't remove the name because it was ALL HEBREW. But I could imagine myself as an olden Greek scribe looking at these older copies and thinking to myself "What the hell are these Hebrew characters doing in an entirely Greek manuscript? Why don't we just put down the Greek version of this YHWH dude?"
wannabe:
They didn't just think it, they did it. (and I know what you originally mean by this example)
You said:
Well guess what, Greek doesn't have a Y or W equivalent (the W being closer to V). Again the letters are Yod and Vhau, well Greek has the letter Ypsilon, but that's pronounced: Oopsilon; and there is simply no V (or W for that matter) equivalent either. In fact English is closer to pronouncing the name more correcly than Greek due to the fact Greek simply has no letters to make equivalents with. So if you're a Greek scribe and you have no way of properly even translating the name correctly what's the next best thing?
wannabe:
The 'first' not the next best thing would have been to never remove His name in the first place! Our language came about as a result of our rebellion, so what gives us the right to think we can think of a name that replaces His in our own REBELLIOUS language in the first place? Think about it...
You said:
The next best thing would be to translate the 'meaning', and since it was God's name the meaning would be 'God'. Thus Kyrios derived from 'Theos', which means 'God'.
wannabe:
"Kyrios" and "Theos", were titles the Greeks refered to Zeus and other Greek deities, The 'Almighty of the Hebrews' name does not mean or even refer to "God", for this title does not even "translate" (carry the same meaning) from the Greeks "Kyrios, theos"
You said:
By this point a dramatic 'TUM TUM TUM' sound should be ringing in the background behind you, if it's not, than it's just a little imaginative picture I like to paint knowing that I know how it really goes. If you believe God's name would be written 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and not mentioned once in the Greek, than you have another thing coming; and I'll tell you what that is, it's historical inaccuracy and therefore not true.
wannabe:
I would like to say Greek "words" were translated NOT His name, HIS NAME IS NOT A WORD, and definately never to be "translated", HIS NAME WAS REMOVED, His name was written in gold letters to make His name "set apart" from the rest of the text. To "translate" words into another language is one thing, to say a name needs to be translated into another is in fact great error. Once again, 'identity theft'.
you said:
I'm gonna say this: JW's aren't 100% correct on interpreting all the Bible as the absolute truth to how everything is gonna play out.
wannabe:
They are way off, they even did a little altering of an already altered bible themselves.
you said:
They do think they are very special among God's people, and I agree there is some merit to that; but the truth of everything is, if you are a good person and have embraced Christ as your savior, you're a lot closer to being saved than someone who follows a false prophet like Muhammed. But there's a lot of things though that mainstream Christians just aren't doing right, and that's the truth. And I mean simple things. But I'm hungry and I'll get to that later.
wannabe: special to Gods people? Well, who is this "God" they claim to be special to? Lets take a look:
HOVAH: Strongs Hebrew concordance #1943,
ruin, mischief.
And as you should be aware of the letter "J" did not exist until the 1600's, considering "scholars" say the J is a replacement for the Y, therefore, the "Ye" carries the meaning of "He is", Ye..."He is", and Hovah...RUIN. He is ruin/mischief? thats why I asked you "whats IN the name".
you said:
Look, on the Day of Judgement we're all gonna be in the same boat.
wannabe:
I agree.
you said:
We're all gonna have to relocate due to famine, war, floods, earthquakes and all kinds of catostrophic events. When that happens the true Christian congregations will gather to God's mountain. And when that happens he's gonna tell us precisely what we've been getting wrong and what we've being doing right.
I'm not saying you're not saved because you don't know Jehovah; I'm just saying you're making yourself secondary to those that know his name because they cared enough to find out the truth. Just remember this, the father of all lies is Satan.
"Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie." (Revelation 22:15) |
wannabe:
In conclusion, I would like to mention the name "Jesus" does not mean waht you think it means.
The title "God" does not mean what you think it means, so be careful in what "your version of the truth" may actually be spreading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It has been asserted that copies of the NT found among the dead sea scrolls have YHWH instead of Kyrios and are dated before 450 AD.
My comment - it is a fiction.
Copies of the OT, translated into Greek, perhaps fraqments of the LXX do contain YHWH rather than Kyrios in some places. But no, repeat no, extant copies of the NT when quoting the OT where in the Hebrew YHWH appears, contain YHWH.
And so to repeat the obvious, the inspired NT writers used Kyrios to represent YHWH, whether or not the Greek version of the OT they were using used Kyrios or YHWH.
The logic stack runs like this, since YHWH may have been replaced by Kyrios in the OT LXX, then the NT copiests must have done the same thing.
Anyone who does not recognize the logic flaw -guilt by association - needs to take propaganda 101.
There are no copies, no evidence, just a theory that all of the extant copies of the NT text are corrupted. Myth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
