Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34679 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting all your information from JW cult bots.
Look on any site that is not clearly biased and you will find what I am saying to be true.
Sites that are not biased do not have opinions on them. Even concordances have bias, but I prefer them and interlinears for my research. My personal study has consistently led me to agree with JW theology.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34680 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I smell a brain-washed cult member.
Seeing as you are likely in a room alone while writing this, I suspect the smell is quite strong indeed.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34681 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have any questions about what I said then just ask. Your denialism is typical of cult members. You are terrified of looking at the facts because they just might not agree with you.[/QUOTEs}

I'm shaking in fear. Actually, that's because I heard creeper noises on minecraft that's running in the background. Dogen, if tomorrow I find empirical evidence that the Watchtower is evil or wrong or anything, I'm going to change beliefs without giving it a second thought. I'm single, fairly young, and not tied to anything. I legitimately couldn't care less who is right or wrong as long as I'm ultimately right. But as it turns out, I have never seen empirical evidence for it -- in fact, most people who argue against my current beliefs do so with irrelevant or illogical arguments (Exhibit A coming up shortly).

Let's make something explicitly clear: I. Do. Not. Care.
If it isn't relevant to truth or current doctrine, don't even waste your time telling me.
If the governing body sends out a directive tomorrow that JWs have to kill people, that won't mean that the beliefs I've learned before are wrong nor right -- it's irrelevant and proves or disproves nothing.
If half of the organization agrees to it and starts killing people, that's also irrelevant.
If the organization started from a group of satanic mobsters -- I couldn't possibly care less -- as long as the beliefs they have now are pure and correct.
If the organizations doctrine caused millions of deaths and lots of suffering, but it's been refined and no longer is, then telling me that millions died before is irrelevant.
When David was king, lots of Israelites died because of his mistakes.
There were false prophets in Israel as well.
Does that mean that Israel was not the custodian of the true religion, or that they were not the Chosen people? Nope.
Sure Israel was rejected later, but we still believe in the OT, because even though Israel was a mess, the OT contains truth.
Truth is what I care about. Not that David slept around and murdered a guy, not that some retarded Israelites burned their children to death -- irrelevant.

If you want to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, you need to logically prove that they are wrong. Talking about details that don't pertain to doctrinal truth isn't going to phase me. I'm like 25% vulcan :P.

[QUOTE who="Dogen"]
Besides clarification I can provide reference to everything I say.
If relevant, do it.
Dogen wrote:
That "Jehovah" is a translation error is not even debatable anymore.[...] It is completely wrong.
It's completely wrong if we were trying to talk Biblical Hebrew, in which case so is Yahweh. But we aren't. We talk English. And in all respected dictionaries that I've seen, Jehovah is the English Personal Name of the Judeo-Christian God in Christian theology (or some other fairly similar definition). In the Philippines they say Dyihobe, and in spanish, Jehová(with the J having an H sound) etc. etc. based on how those alphabets and languages have evolved over time. It's all pronounced a little bit differently as well.

When you are a higher authority than dictionaries as far as language goes, let me know. Until then, your obsession with reading about who did what causing an error which hundreds of years later resulted in a different pronunciation of x and y names is irrelevant. Jehovah is God's name in English. When I learn Hebrew, I'll say it in Hebrew.
Dogen wrote:
Again, feel free to ask, if you suddenly have a bout of courage (not often seen in cult members).
It's not courage when you aren't afraid. This is the on-line version of dinner for schmucks for me. I copy your posts over to my friends and play a game to see who can spot the most logical fallacies and irrelevant red-herrings. It's fun, because even when I lose, we all win, hahaha.

Plan your posts out logically so that it's at least sort-of a challenge! ;)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34682 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have any questions about what I said then just ask. Your denialism is typical of cult members. You are terrified of looking at the facts because they just might not agree with you.
I'm shaking in fear. Actually, that's because I heard creeper noises on minecraft that's running in the background. Dogen, if tomorrow I find empirical evidence that the Watchtower is evil or wrong or anything, I'm going to change beliefs without giving it a second thought. I'm single, fairly young, and not tied to anything. I legitimately couldn't care less who is right or wrong as long as I'm ultimately right. But as it turns out, I have never seen empirical evidence for it -- in fact, most people who argue against my current beliefs do so with irrelevant or illogical arguments (Exhibit A coming up shortly).

Let's make something explicitly clear: I. Do. Not. Care.
If it isn't relevant to truth or current doctrine, don't even waste your time telling me.
If the governing body sends out a directive tomorrow that JWs have to kill people, that won't mean that the beliefs I've learned before are wrong nor right -- it's irrelevant and proves or disproves nothing.
If half of the organization agrees to it and starts killing people, that's also irrelevant.
If the organization started from a group of satanic mobsters -- I couldn't possibly care less -- as long as the beliefs they have now are pure and correct.
If the organizations doctrine caused millions of deaths and lots of suffering, but it's been refined and no longer is, then telling me that millions died before is irrelevant.
When David was king, lots of Israelites died because of his mistakes.
There were false prophets in Israel as well.
Does that mean that Israel was not the custodian of the true religion, or that they were not the Chosen people? Nope.
Sure Israel was rejected later, but we still believe in the OT, because even though Israel was a mess, the OT contains truth.
Truth is what I care about. Not that David slept around and murdered a guy, not that some retarded Israelites burned their children to death -- irrelevant.

If you want to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, you need to logically prove that they are wrong. Talking about details that don't pertain to doctrinal truth isn't going to phase me. I'm like 25% vulcan :P.
Dogen wrote:
Besides clarification I can provide reference to everything I say.
If relevant, do it.
Dogen wrote:
That "Jehovah" is a translation error is not even debatable anymore.[...] It is completely wrong.
It's completely wrong if we were trying to talk Biblical Hebrew, in which case so is Yahweh. But we aren't. We talk English. And in all respected dictionaries that I've seen, Jehovah is the English Personal Name of the Judeo-Christian God in Christian theology (or some other fairly similar definition). In the Philippines they say Dyihobe, and in spanish, Jehová(with the J having an H sound) etc. etc. based on how those alphabets and languages have evolved over time. It's all pronounced a little bit differently as well.

When you are a higher authority than dictionaries as far as language goes, let me know. Until then, your obsession with reading about who did what causing an error which hundreds of years later resulted in a different pronunciation of x and y names is irrelevant. Jehovah is God's name in English. When I learn Hebrew, I'll say it in Hebrew.
Dogen wrote:
Again, feel free to ask, if you suddenly have a bout of courage (not often seen in cult members).
It's not courage when you aren't afraid. This is the on-line version of dinner for schmucks for me. I copy your posts over to my friends and play a game to see who can spot the most logical fallacies and irrelevant red-herrings. It's fun, because even when I lose, we all win, hahaha.

Plan your posts out logically so that it's at least sort-of a challenge! ;)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34683 May 23, 2013
Chaumette wrote:
If Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus Christ, then I am Jesus Christ!
Oh man, this is too rich. I know it was intended as a joke, so it is with great respect that I notify you that you have been awarded 1st place for most hilarious and utterly inane fallacy of the day. Congratulations!

It's like someone got a non-sequitur, stuck it in a rocket ship, and took that thing so far that it reached the edge of space and warped back around.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34684 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations on your secularly studying fields with only mild correlation to religion. I respect biblical education the highest, but as opposed to blowing your time in other ways, kudos on choosing to learn psychology. I almost wish I could discuss DiD with you now, since I've always thought it was an intriguing mental illness that hasn't received as much mainstream attention as Schizo, etc. But, alas, maybe some other time.

We can discuss DiD if you like. I have had several clients with DiD over the years. Its etiology is at least ans interesting as the symptoms or even the course of therapy.

We may need to move to another forum if it becomes too off topic, however.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
I would normally consider anyone who fits the dictionary definition of a scholar to be a scholar. Within reason, am I "a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject"? Additionally, am I a "pupil, student"? I would say yes to both.

When using the term in the context we have been using it I was looking at "a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sch...

My son, who has autism and is in special education would qualify as a scholar based on definition #1. And we are certainly not talking about definition #3. That leaves 2a in the gray area. A very gray area. Nearly anyone could qualify as a scholar by this definition, and indeed we may all be scholars in our limited fields.

But I would go with one who practices the scholarly method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method

and, for the most part we are then looking at people who have Ph.D's or other terminal degrees.

There is no doubt that one does not require such a degree to be a scholar. I would consider Bill Gates to be a scholar in his field and he is worlds most famous college drop out.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> It's unfortunate that you aren't a scholar, but that does not undermine the validity of my own claim, nor does your unwillingness to accept it alter its reality. A tree is recognized by its fruit.

It is the fruit that is the source of my doubt that you are a scholar in any more than the most vague and general sense of the word. That being said, lets see what fruits we produce.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> At any rate, the authorities on the English language, of which you are not one, established the meaning of scholar. I qualify as one, and therefore, your argument (of no scholar accepting the NWT) is (quite comically) dismantled.

I am afraid the fruit of your logic here is poor. Since you have diluted the value of "scholar" to mean someone in preschool we no longer need value English scholars (authorities on the English language) though it was a nice try on your part to avoid the pitfall of calling them "scholars". Since I am using the term scholar to mean something more akin to well educated, professional who follows the scholarly method(s) it leaves us both out when it comes to defining words.

Of course you realize that dictionary definitions of words are culled from their meaning in actual use and not the other way around, right?

ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> Unless you want to redefine scholar ....

As the rest of your post adds nothing to the discussion it will not be responded too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34685 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Sites that are not biased do not have opinions on them. Even concordances have bias, but I prefer them and interlinears for my research. My personal study has consistently led me to agree with JW theology.

Scholars (my definition) would not agree with you.

Watchtowerism can be refuted by going no further than the public name of the cult "Jehovah's Witnesses". As is known the word "Jehovah" was an early English translation error. It was made by someone translating YHWH who did not understand the significance of the diacritical markings in the text and how they affect pronunciation. Even with that information it is impossible to be 100% certain of the intonation, but Yahweh is very close (yahwah, yalway are proposed as alternatives). Jehovah, however, is simply wrong.

Now, this in itself would not be fatal if the cult did not make claims as to being the restorers of the divine name of God. But replacing one incorrect word with another incorrect word does not a restorer make.

Thus the very premise of the watchtower cult if flawed.

To find out the other 999 ways the cult fails we need to look at history and the NT. For example do you know how many times 'False prophets' are referred to in the Bible? Now, are there any large, modern "Christian" cults that have made more false prophecies than the watchtower cult?

Nope, I could not think of any either.

998 to go.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34686 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as you are likely in a room alone while writing this, I suspect the smell is quite strong indeed.

One person in the room, several out in the hall. What point do you have?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34687 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
If relevant, do it.
<quoted text>
It's completely wrong if we were trying to talk Biblical Hebrew, in which case so is Yahweh. But we aren't. We talk English. And in all respected dictionaries that I've seen, Jehovah is the English Personal Name of the Judeo-Christian God in Christian theology (or some other fairly similar definition). In the Philippines they say Dyihobe, and in spanish, Jehová(with the J having an H sound) etc. etc. based on how those alphabets and languages have evolved over time. It's all pronounced a little bit differently as well.
When you are a higher authority than dictionaries as far as language goes, let me know. Until then, your obsession with reading about who did what causing an error which hundreds of years later resulted in a different pronunciation of x and y names is irrelevant. Jehovah is God's name in English. When I learn Hebrew, I'll say it in Hebrew.
<quoted text>
It's not courage when you aren't afraid. This is the on-line version of dinner for schmucks for me. I copy your posts over to my friends and play a game to see who can spot the most logical fallacies and irrelevant red-herrings. It's fun, because even when I lose, we all win, hahaha.
Plan your posts out logically so that it's at least sort-of a challenge! ;)

No. Jehovah is not in biblical Hebrew anywhere.

Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration into English. Now that Yahweh is well known as the name of God this is less of an issue. 40 years ago few except scholars knew that Jehovah was a translation error. Now that we know the name of Yahweh in English we have taken a small but important step toward reconstructing his true religion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34688 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen, if tomorrow I find empirical evidence that the Watchtower is evil or wrong or anything, I'm going to change beliefs without giving it a second thought.

I don't believe this for one second. The reason is simple. The information is out there and anyone looking for the truth can find it.

There are lots of JW survivor support groups in most large cities and there are a bizillion of them on the web. You should read some of their stories. They are interesting.

Lunch is over. Back to work.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34689 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can discuss DiD if you like. I have had several clients with DiD over the years. Its etiology is at least ans interesting as the symptoms or even the course of therapy.
We may need to move to another forum if it becomes too off topic, however.
Just briefly, is there normally like a "loading" phase when the person is switching from one to the next? Like a moment of unresponsiveness while the brain "loads" the new personality into place -- or is it like they are all on "RAM" and instantly accessible at random times?
Dogen wrote:
Scholarly method
Still gray, and I run experiments every other day on a variety of things and document them in Evernote. Every time I try to cure my random eczema with lip balm, or things like that, I follow the scientific method, etc. It's a vague definition, and vague enough that either random people like ourselves qualify, or even people you think do (like Bill Gates) may not.
Dogen wrote:
It is the fruit that is the source of my doubt that you are a scholar in any more than the most vague and general sense of the word. That being said, lets see what fruits we produce.
Vague or not, you said I lied when I claimed to be a Scholar. It wasn't a lie.
Dogen wrote:
I am afraid the fruit of your logic here is poor. Since you have diluted the value of "scholar" to mean someone in preschool we no longer need value English scholars (authorities on the English language) though it was a nice try on your part to avoid the pitfall of calling them "scholars".


I haven't diluted anything, I simply pointed to the dictionary. Not my fault if the English language is unnecessarily vague or decides to call the supreme being Jehovah instead of transliterating his name from Hebrew.
Dogen wrote:
Since I am using the term scholar to mean something more akin to well educated, professional who follows the scholarly method(s) it leaves us both out when it comes to defining words.
Still vague. Speak for yourself, lol.
Dogen wrote:
Of course you realize that dictionary definitions of words are culled from their meaning in actual use and not the other way around, right?
That's like when people say the American government gets its power from the people. Sort-of. It sort-of does. But in general, a random person like you or I, cannot generate real change without an insane amount of commitment. However, if you convince an English-speaking majority to join your cause and redefine some terms, then kudos to you. At that point, you can come back and tell me I'm not a scholar, lol.
Dogen wrote:
As the rest of your post adds nothing to the discussion it will not be responded too.
Fair enough.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34690 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Scholars (my definition) would not agree with you.
In other words, people who don't agree with me are scholars, and therefore based on your definition of scholarship, scholars don't agree with me. Whatever!
Dogen wrote:
Watchtowerism can be refuted by going no further than the public name of the cult "Jehovah's Witnesses". As is known the word "Jehovah" was an early English translation error. It was made by someone translating YHWH who did not understand the significance of the diacritical markings in the text and how they affect pronunciation. Even with that information it is impossible to be 100% certain of the intonation, but Yahweh is very close (yahwah, yalway are proposed as alternatives). Jehovah, however, is simply wrong.
Now, this in itself would not be fatal if the cult did not make claims as to being the restorers of the divine name of God. But replacing one incorrect word with another incorrect word does not a restorer make.
Thus the very premise of the watchtower cult if flawed.
To find out the other 999 ways the cult fails we need to look at history and the NT. For example do you know how many times 'False prophets' are referred to in the Bible? Now, are there any large, modern "Christian" cults that have made more false prophecies than the watchtower cult?
Nope, I could not think of any either.
998 to go.
Repeating this isn't going to make it any less wrong.
The bible is translated, and many times the divine name is put with the English equivalent of the title "God" or "Lord" (i.e. God or Lord, lol).
Instead of putting the English equivalent of a title, they put the English equivalent of the name (i.e. Jehovah).
In that sense, they restore the English Equivalent of God's name to the English Equivalent of the bible.

I've never seen the watchtower claim to be reviving the biblical languages in order to also be able to restore God's name in the original languages. As such, your argument simply holds no weight at all. Unless the person is already grasping at non-existent straws to not believe in our biblical truth or is on their way out for sexual immorality or something like that, no logical person would be convinced with this ridiculous argument. One straw-man argument down for the Nth time (to the Nth power), one more to go!

The organization has never claimed divine inspiration. They're attempts at understanding biblical prophecy is never said to be infallible. And did you not understand what I said before about not caring about irrelevant details?

A satanist could come tomorrow, repent, return, and if he proves a biblical truth to me, I'm going to believe it regardless of his past. Some Christians in the 1st century were Ex-mages. It means nothing.

The way I see it, you have 2 sucky fallacies, and intend to make 998 more. If anyone is convinced by this crap, I'm glad they are leaving the organization (speaking in a fleshly way). We could do without their weak minds.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34691 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Jehovah is not in biblical Hebrew anywhere.
Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration into English. Now that Yahweh is well known as the name of God this is less of an issue. 40 years ago few except scholars knew that Jehovah was a translation error. Now that we know the name of Yahweh in English we have taken a small but important step toward reconstructing his true religion.
Did I say that Jehovah appeared in Biblical Hebrew, or did I say that it is the English translation? Did I ever say Jehovah was an accurate transliteration? Knowing that Yahweh is potentially the pronunciation of the name in Biblical Hebrew *Does not* make it the English translation. It's slowly becoming an English word as well, but as of yet, it is not main-stream English.

The watchtower already prints God's name in many different ways based on languages, so I assure you that if Yahweh becomes recognized as the new way of saying Jehovah in English, then they will simply change the way it's printed in literature. We're not claiming that Jehovah is the right way to pronounce God's name -- we're just saying it's God's name in English. And thus far, it is. When the dictionaries change that, we'll adjust, because we're just being honest and could not possibly care less about secret agendas and the like.

I know you've been brainwashed to think otherwise. I couldn't possibly care less.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34692 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe this for one second. The reason is simple. The information is out there and anyone looking for the truth can find it.
There are lots of JW survivor support groups in most large cities and there are a bizillion of them on the web. You should read some of their stories. They are interesting.
Lunch is over. Back to work.
You don't believe it because if you did believe it, it would mean you are wrong. In other words, obviously you don't believe it, because you can't believe it. Your belief or lack of belief in what I'm saying was never in question. Hopefully someday you'll find truth yourself, my friend.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34694 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Just briefly, is there normally like a "loading" phase when the person is switching from one to the next? Like a moment of unresponsiveness while the brain "loads" the new personality into place -- or is it like they are all on "RAM" and instantly accessible at random times?

If you have met one person with DiD then you have met one person with DiD. I have seen them flip on the fly,... in mid sentence even, without pause and some seem to pause briefly. Some seem to be context sensitive, for example if the person is stressed they are more likely to show one particular personality over another. Therapy essentially consists of working on reintegrating the personalities into one whole person. Along the way you have to work to reinforce the more mature personality(ies) and of course work on helping the person understand the trauma that caused this split in the first place. Oh, and you don't want to get sucked into the clients belief that these are actually somehow separate but rather aspects of one whole self.

ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> I haven't diluted anything, I simply pointed to the dictionary. Not my fault if the English language is unnecessarily vague or decides to call the supreme being Jehovah instead of transliterating his name from Hebrew.

Actually the name Jehovah has fallen into disfavor. More people use the correct "Yahweh" today. Jehovah was popular 50 years ago, but that was then and this is now. So it has become a moot problem except for a new age cult that insists on using the old erroneous translation.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> That's like when people say the American government gets its power from the people. Sort-of. It sort-of does. But in general, a random person like you or I, cannot generate real change without an insane amount of commitment.

That is how it should be in a democracy. We are one in 300,000,000 so we have that proportion of power (roughly). So it is not power of one person, but of the people in aggregate.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> However, if you convince an English-speaking majority to join your cause and redefine some terms, then kudos to you. At that point, you can come back and tell me I'm not a scholar, lol.

Not necessary to get anyone to redefine anything. I doubt many people would consider you to be a scholar in that all you have had is a few classes on a subject. Were they even taken at a real university or some uncredited religious school?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34695 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, people who don't agree with me are scholars, and therefore based on your definition of scholarship, scholars don't agree with me. Whatever!

That isn't really what I said, now is it?
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating this isn't going to make it any less wrong.

As I stated before (quite correctly):

Watchtowerism can be refuted by going no further than the public name of the cult "Jehovah's Witnesses". As is known the word "Jehovah" was an early English translation error. It was made by someone translating YHWH who did not understand the significance of the diacritical markings in the text and how they affect pronunciation. Even with that information it is impossible to be 100% certain of the intonation, but Yahweh is very close (yahwah, yalway are proposed as alternatives). Jehovah, however, is simply wrong.
Now, this in itself would not be fatal if the cult did not make claims as to being the restorers of the divine name of God. But replacing one incorrect word with another incorrect word does not a restorer make.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> The bible is translated, and many times the divine name is put with the English equivalent of the title "God" or "Lord" (i.e. God or Lord, lol).
Instead of putting the English equivalent of a title, they put the English equivalent of the name (i.e. Jehovah).

There is no English equivilent except Yahweh. Jehovah is not equal to anything. Again, it was a basic error that should have never been made.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> In that sense, they restore the English Equivalent of God's name to the English Equivalent of the bible.

Except there was never an English equivalent of YHWH until it was correctly transliterated Yahweh. Now that this is the norm in English even you should agree. No one else except one cult uses the made up word "jehovah" anymore.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never seen the watchtower claim to be reviving the biblical languages in order to also be able to restore God's name in the original languages. As such, your argument simply holds no weight at all.

In your uninformed opinion.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> Unless the person is already grasping at non-existent straws to not believe in our biblical truth or is on their way out for sexual immorality or something like that, no logical person would be convinced with this ridiculous argument.

It was not an argument, it was a history lesson. The name of Yahweh does not change. It is the same forever.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
One straw-man argument down for the Nth time (to the Nth power), one more to go!

Please don't whine like a child.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
The organization has never claimed divine inspiration. They're attempts at understanding biblical prophecy is never said to be infallible.

They made prophecies and were wrong. That is what false prophets do.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> And did you not understand what I said before about not caring about irrelevant details?

Translation: My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Typical cult member. You are quite the cliche.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> The way I see it, you have 2 sucky fallacies, and intend to make 998 more. If anyone is convinced by this crap, I'm glad they are leaving the organization (speaking in a fleshly way). We could do without their weak minds.

ibid. You want to avoid the truth. Like most cult members you have no real faith and no spirit of Yahweh within you. That is your choice.

All I am saying is give truth a chance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34696 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say that Jehovah appeared in Biblical Hebrew, or did I say that it is the English translation? Did I ever say Jehovah was an accurate transliteration?

It is NOT a correct English rendering. It is a mistake.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> Knowing that Yahweh is potentially the pronunciation of the name in Biblical Hebrew *Does not* make it the English translation.

Names do not translate.


The watchtower already prints God's name in many different ways based on languages, so I assure you that if Yahweh becomes recognized as the new way of saying Jehovah in English, then they will simply change the way it's printed in literature.

They have not yet to date. In fact they have a big denial game going on which they feed to their sales force ("publishers" so called. Pushers would be more like it. Cults are a psychological addiction).
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> We're not claiming that Jehovah is the right way to pronounce God's name

Good. Because that sounds like what you were doing.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> we're just saying it's God's name in English.

But, as I have demonstrated, it is not. Jehovah was an ATTEMPT to render YHWH into old English. A failed attempt but an attempt. That is where the word came from. Now that we know the truth should we continue in error? By no means!


I know you've been brainwashed to think otherwise. I couldn't possibly care less.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34697 May 23, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe it because if you did believe it, it would mean you are wrong. In other words, obviously you don't believe it, because you can't believe it. Your belief or lack of belief in what I'm saying was never in question. Hopefully someday you'll find truth yourself, my friend.

You are babbling. Rewrite your post in English if there was a point to your post.

Right now I see you as just another duped cult member. There are lots of cults out there that claim (often with better credibility) to know the truth. Watchtowerism is only one of them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34698 May 23, 2013
yon wrote:
I can't understand what jw's and CoC are in disagreement about if they both claim to be the true religion that says everybody else is "lost" if they don't agree like them.

They are both wacko, but CoC is more solidly grounded and has their facts more in line with reality than the JWs. Obviously I very much disagree with the CoC, but their reasoning consistent. The JW's, not so much. They are more of a hodgepodge of beliefs that keep changing over time. Some of their stuff is really out there (their views on blood are very OTish, but are not even solid when viewed from the Old Testament perspective.
Student

Oregon City, OR

#34699 May 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They are both wacko, but CoC is more solidly grounded and has their facts more in line with reality than the JWs. Obviously I very much disagree with the CoC, but their reasoning consistent. The JW's, not so much. They are more of a hodgepodge of beliefs that keep changing over time. Some of their stuff is really out there (their views on blood are very OTish, but are not even solid when viewed from the Old Testament perspective.
The governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood.

Their decree states:“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”(Ac 15:22, 28, 29)

The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled”).

This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind.

In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184):“This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—it-1 Blood p[. 345, 346

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min waaasssuuup 590,251
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min It aint necessari... 838,808
www.myaccountaccess.com rewards (Nov '12) 5 min cindyhoyt 16
Samantha luna loya 7 min Happigolucki 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 11 min RiccardoFire 99,983
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 17 min RiccardoFire 4,436
News 'Bush heard of Iraqi civilian murders from press' (May '06) 22 min Swedenforever 25
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr swedenforever 176,949
More from around the web