Comments
33,201 - 33,220 of 38,440 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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
FACT

Port Moody, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34703
May 24, 2013
 
jesus christ died in corpus christi Texas 1987' at the slayer concert of the 'ReigN in PaiN' TouR!8-)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34704
May 24, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know one such person, but they have it fairly under control. Do you select the personality which should become the "leader" in a sense, or do you leave that to the client?
Dogen wrote:
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.
What is Christ's name? What are the names of the 12 apostles?
Dogen wrote:
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.
Only one course of action can be taken. Which means that majority vote, trumps the minority vote causing it to hold no power at all. It's one of the issues with Democracy.
Dogen wrote:
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?
1) What I study alone, like Greek or Rosetta Stone, is not officially accredited. The classes I studied in school, like World Religion, Philosophy etc. are accredited.

2) A lot of people that don't know me would come to a lot of incorrect conclusions. People who know me in person would generally agree that I would qualify as such. Which is good, because even though they aren't aware, the dictionary agrees with them.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34705
May 24, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't really what I said, now is it?
Inference is a natural part of discussion.
Dogen wrote:
As I stated before (quite correctly):
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.
Back your claim up. Where do we claim to be the "restorers" of God's Name?
Dogen wrote:
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.
The dictionary does not agree with you.
Dogen wrote:
Except there was never an English equivalent of YHWH until it was correctly transliterated Yahweh.
Wrong. The Latinized name 'Jehovah' was the English equivalent.
Dogen wrote:
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.
Back this claim up with statistics.
Dogen wrote:
In your uninformed opinion.
Prove me wrong.
Dogen wrote:
It was not an argument, it was a history lesson. The name of Yahweh does not change. It is the same forever.
There are several instances of a name being said to "Endure forever". However, people talk about King David as King David, even though it should be pronounced "dav-ved" or "dav-veed". Enduring forever and undergoing natural changes with speech is not mutually exclusive.
Dogen wrote:
Please don't whine like a child.
There's a difference between whining and championing my victories. When my opponent can't hold up an argument without resorting to fallacies, it means rational people are going to start leaning to my side. Keep it up, you're practically winning this for me.
Dogen wrote:
They made prophecies and were wrong. That is what false prophets do.
They made interpretations. If you believe they were prophecies, back it up. Show me where they said that they were prophetically inspired to make a prediction or anything of that sort. Not that it matters, because as I've said many times, even someone who has been consistently wrong in history can later be consistently right. It's unrelated and irrelevant. However, I would still like you to back it up.
Dogen wrote:
Translation: My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Typical cult member. You are quite the cliche.
I would have thought they'd make you study rhetoric or at least some logic with all of the classes you've taken. Clearly they failed if you cannot understand that most of what you write 'does not follow', i.e. is a non-sequitur. It seems your studying has made you think you are reasonable, but you fail to see that learning does not give you fluid intelligence. Maybe some day, if I'm in an analytical mood, I'll break down your arguments so that you can see how fallacious they are.
Dogen wrote:
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 simply have the ability to reason and won't be convinced by the same flawed arguments that convinced you. I'm above fallacies.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34706
May 24, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is NOT a correct English rendering. It is a mistake.
It was made intentionally, even if you consider it a mistake, and it is currently an English word.
Dogen wrote:
Names do not translate.
You are an expert in this field because? Religious names *do* translate. It is an exception from the otherwise relatively common practice of transliterating a name that doesn't have an easy translation. Again: What is Christ's name? What are the names of the 12 apostles?
Dogen wrote:
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).
To date, Jehovah is still used and commonly accepted, whether you and your 6 friends think so or not.
Dogen wrote:
Good. Because that sounds like what you were doing.
Being a way it's said in English and being the original pronunciation is quite different.
Dogen wrote:
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!
Language is a tool to convey meaning. To the majority of people I meet and talk to, Jehovah holds more meaning than Yahweh. I've used Yahweh in the past interchangeably with Jehovah, depending on the situation. As long as people understand who I'm talking about, the pronunciation of language used to invoke that reputation is irrelevant.

Again, what do you call Christ? What are the names of his 12 apostles? Are you going to continue to pronounce those in error?
Dogen wrote:
I know you've been brainwashed to think otherwise. I couldn't possibly care less.
You know that? You know that I've been brainwashed? You know I actually studied brainwashing in sociology? It was one of the projects I picked from the list when we were studying it. Brainwashing is just like addiction. It's a word that essentially means persuaded except with a negative connotation just like addiction means a habit with a negative connotation. It literally holds no value.

I don't need to take logic lessons from a person who has none.

What is Christ's name? What are the names of the 12 apostles? Are you going to lie and tell me you don't commonly use the Latinized version of their names instead of their 'actual' names? If you even remember the names of the 12 by memory (which alone would be a miracle) I know that you would have to search for the 12 names in the original language, because you have no clue. Are you going to keep speaking in error and adding words to the bible?

Hypocrite, fix first your pronunciation of every biblical name, and after that, come and tell me that names must be transliterated and maintain their original pronunciation.

When you do that, you'll still be wrong and illogical -- but at least you won't be a hypocrite. How am I to expect more from someone who didn't study linguistics but wants to act as an authority on it?
Student

Oregon City, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34707
May 24, 2013
 
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean they ruled on circumcision. Blood was never an issue.
Do you have a BIBLE? Act 15:28, 29 (NW)reads--------

28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 TO KEEP ABSTAINING FROM THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS AND FROM (NOTICE THIS) """BLOOD"a nd from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

Acts 15:28, 29 (KJV)---------
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessarey things: 29- That ye ABSTAIN FROM MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND FROM ((BLOOD))
Student

Oregon City, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34711
May 24, 2013
 
yon wrote:
YOU SHOULD READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER
The Jerusalem Council Chaper 15
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers,“Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter:“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers[c] who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you[d] with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Acts 15:25-29

25 we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar&#8242;na&#8231;bas and Paul, 26 men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 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!”

Blood was an issue that they also ruled on. Quit picking and choosing what Scriptures you want to belief.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

400 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 min Aura Mytha 5,217
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 5 min Rama Naicker 4,544
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 6 min Ed Teach 53,160
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 7 min cretin56 4,095
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min It aint necessarily so 720,272
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 min Aura Mytha 256,401
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min Buck Crick 224,028
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min Liam 532,451
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Clearwater 172,271
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 15 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••