Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    463

Posts posted by JW Insider

  1. 1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

    Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

    Is there an LXX awareness of these?

    They are apparently random. Hebrews used alphabetic acrostics in psalms and poetry because it provided a mnemonic. Imagine trying to remember a Psalm of 172 verses like Psalms 119 if it didn't make use of an alphabetic memory aid. But there is no evidence that the Hebrew readers who translated the Hebrew to Greek for the LXX even noticed them in Esther. Also, these are some of the most common letters in Hebrew, and they are at apparently random, non-poetic places in the book. This is also true of where they show up in at least 50 or 60 other places in the Bible but never got noticed - because those books didn't go through a canonization debate and already used God's name, sometimes right next to the so-called acrostic. First Chronicles has more than a dozen of them, in obviously random places. And, just like in the book of Esther, sometimes, to make them work, you have to use the beginning letters of four consecutive words for some, and the final letters for some, and you have to read forward on some and read backwards on some.

    This gives evidence that it was just wishful thinking that forced people to look even harder at the book to try to find the divine name in it, or perhaps that the text was purposely manipulated to give Esther an edge in canonization. (But the fact that no one just went ahead and added YHWH to the text, makes Micah's point even less relevant.)

    Laurence A. Turner wrote an essay for a publication in a scholarly journal in 2013 that kind of sums up the idea in the title: "Desperately Seeking Yhwh, Finding God in Esther's 'Acrostics.'" https://www.academia.edu/6370833/Desperately_Seeking_YHWH_Finding_God_in_Esthers_Acrostics_

    In that work, it is mentioned that you can even find Satan in the book of Esther at least twice by using the same methods. (Of course, a real numerologist would simply say that this means that God is twice as powerful as Satan, and some would undoubtedly nod their heads without questioning whether God is actually 7 or 10 or 100,000 times more powerful.)

    Edited to add: Just noticed a footnote in the work quoted by Turner. Previously I had seen someone who found about 60 instances. Turner claims to have found over 100. My guess is that there are probably even a few more. Here's his footnote:

    Quote

    Not including those in Esther, there are 102 examples: initial consonants read left to right (60) and right to left (27); final consonants read left to right (4) and right to left (11)

     

  2. Starting with the basics, we have a quote like the following from the source: "The Divine Name Yahweh" already mentioned above. For ease of reading I'll transliterate instead of merely trying to reproduce Hebrew and Greek characters.

    THE proper name for God as the covenant God of Israel is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH). The original pronunciation is uncertain. By inference from its contracted forms in compound names -- יו (YW) or יהו (YHW) at the beginning, or יה (YH) or יהו (YHW) at the end1 -- it appears to have been pronounced Yahweh, and this is confirmed by independent testimony to its transliteration as 'Iabe2 or 'Iaoue.3 The tetragrammaton occurs some 5321 times in the OT and a separate short form of the divine name  יה (YH), 25 times.4

    We count 6,823 instances of YHWH rather than 5,321. But in general we agree with the ideas mentioned. The Foreword in the1950 NWT says that Yahweh is preferred as more accurate, although Jehovah is kept for recognizability and consistency.

    The footnotes included in this quote might be good for future reference:

    1For the philological reasons for connecting these forms with יהוה, see J. Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, p. 611; B. Stade, Hebrew Grammar, par. 113; S. R. Driver, Studia Biblica, 1, pp. 4-6.

    2Pronounced so by the Samaritans according to Theodoret of Cyros. See Quaestio 15 in Exod 7: kalousi de auto Samareitei IABE, 'Ioudaioi de AIA

    3So Clement of Alexandria. See Strom. 5, 6, 34: to tetragrammon onoma to musticon ho periekeinto hois monois to aduton basimon en legetai de 'Iaoue.

    4The forms יהו and יהה (probably erroneous) are found in the Elephantine Papyri.

    I should mention that it's likely that in a discussion of this type, that either form, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," will be used interchangeably. I prefer Jehovah as a common usage pronunciation, but as stated in another recent thread even the Watch Tower publications have said that Yah-weh' is likely more accurate:

    *** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

    While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
    as the more correct way,
    we have retained the form
    "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
    the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
    other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
    JHVH.

     

     

  3. 2 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

    Don't forget they were all copies.  There is absolutely NO PROOF that the Tetragrammaton was ever in the text of Scriptures prior to the Babylonian captivity and up to the time of Malachi.

    I think this is backwards. The evidence shows that the name was used more often in the earlier texts and began to be replaced in later texts. The entire book of Esther, for example, which was written later than the Babylonian Captivity, does not contain the name YHWH at all. Later Psalms show the same evidence. Books that scholars date as later, even where most fundamentalist believers do not accept the dates (Daniel, Ecclesiastes) also provide some pieces of evidence to the same trend.

  4. 11 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

    YAHWEH is NOT a HEBREW NAME. It is ARAMAIC, which is closely related to HEBREW.

    Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo Hebrew and nearly all the existing manuscripts, including the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in the Babylonian Aramaic alphabet.

    These four letters YHWH are Babylonian Aramaic. They are NOT SACRED and they are NOT HOLY.

    That's a jump in logic that requires you to believe that the same name (YHWH, not a specific pronunciation) was added in about 6,000+ places in the Hebrew Bible. It turns this entire topic on its head because it means that you reject all the evidence for the correctness of the Hebrew text. And then you see it as a problem that Witnesses generally believe that the Greek text was tampered with.

    This is one of the reasons I wanted to start a brand new topic that goes through much of the scholarly evidence about the relevant Bible texts, but sticks more closely to that evidence and does not veer off on so many other topics.

  5. 4 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

    When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. “Yah” (#H3050) means “god”. “Hovah” (#H1942) translates to “eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness.”

    That's just evidence that it would probably never have been pronounced that way by people who speak Hebrew. The Watch Tower publications have also sometimes stated a preference for "Yahweh" as the more correct pronunciation, and "Jehovah" only as a more consistent and familiar pronunciation:

    *** w02 4/1 p. 5 Search for God With Your Heart and Mind ***
    Some scholars prefer the rendering “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” [neutral]

    *** w80 2/1 p. 6 Does God Have a Name? ***
    “Yahweh” (sometimes “Jahveh”) is simply an attempt to express God’s name in a form nearer to the original Hebrew.

    *** w63 11/1 p. 650 par. 5 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial ***
    . . . the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, as some critical clergymen prefer to pronounce it today.

    *** g99 2/8 p. 8 Identifying the Only True God ***
    Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.

    *** g73 3/22 p. 27 “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”? ***
    And further, the form “Jehovah” has a currency and familiarity that “Yahweh” does not have. “Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated.

    *** su chap. 1 p. 8 par. 8 What Will Become of Planet Earth? ***
    Much of the Bible was written originally in Hebrew, and in the Hebrew Bible text God’s personal name appears nearly 7,000 [6,823] times as a sacred tetragrammaton (יהוה). Some translators render it as Yahweh, but in English the most commonly used form of the name is Jehovah.

    *** na p. 9 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation ***
    Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

    *** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

    While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
    as the more correct way,
    we have retained the form
    "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
    the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
    other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
    JHVH.

  6. 1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

    Also God has given Jesus a position worthy of worship to the Glory of the Father.

    Philippians 2:9-13  For this reason also [because He obeyed and so completely humbled Himself], God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow [in submission], of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess and openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord (sovereign God), to the glory of God the Father.

    As you know, we understand this as not direct worship of Jesus, but "relative" worship of Jehovah that can now only go through Jesus. Israelites bent the knee to their king, who was in effect a "Mighty God" to them, but understood that the Sovereign Lord Jehovah was the true Almighty King.

    I think you have jumped the gun when you insert "sovereign God" to verse 11.

    I should add that Jesus as the true Spokesman of God's own word, makes the spokesperson analogy of relative worship, just as strongly as the sovereignty analogy. Note Moses's position as spokesman (the one who gives Aaron the words) between God and Aaron, the spokesman for Moses:

    • (Exodus 4:15, 16) 15 So you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with you and him as you speak, and I will teach you men what to do. 16 He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him.

    When we confess the good news about God and Christ that we learned through Jesus (the "Greater Moses") we are witnesses or spokespersons of someone who serves as God to us. It doesn't make Jesus the "Almighty" sovereign any more than Moses was the Almighty God, just "God."

  7. 34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Why would not autism be counted as a modern day plague? 

    I agree completely. I have no doubt that such things and many more that we never thought of before will plague mankind. My point, however, is that there have been certain types of plagues and diseases that mankind thought they could do nothing about. Then some people start putting two and two together and realizing that some of these things are based on "cause and effect." When enough of these realizations come together, the effect can be unexpectedly positive.

    I think we have the entire world population as evidence of this. Populations of anything under normal circumstances without interference grow on a curve, something like the exponential curve you'd get if you graphed the x2 function. Yet, for thousands of years the population grew in a more subdued linear fashion, effectively flat, until suddenly in the last 100+ years, the growth shot up like the shape of a hockey stick. The largest single factors include "soap & clean water" and a better understanding of cause and effect where disease and plague comes along. Granted there were also wars in China and around the world that killed hundreds of millions in the several hundred years prior to 1919, but there have been huge death tolls in wars since 1919, too. The major explanation, therefore, is that something was done about the problems of plagues and disease through human understanding.

    For this reason, I thought it unwise to appear to be dismissing all the attempts to try to do something about the worldwide plague of child sexual abuse, just because we expect it to get worse. The Catholic Church has held internal conferences and even invited people of other religions to help them to try to brainstorm ideas that can help. The judge, McClellan, of the ARC has made suggestions to the Catholic Church and has looked for ways to get some good ideas implemented while accommodating the process structures of the religions and institutions he has now worked with. If a religious institution appears to have a problem admitting that they have a problem, or does not appear to want to accept help or does not wish to provide suggestions to give help to other institutions based on its own experiences, I think this makes that institution look worse than it really is.

  8. 4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    "My Bethel friend used to tell me how visiting speakers from the hills would rail on about the wickedness of the big city. It made him squirm - ‘New York City is our home,’ he’d say.

    I had the NW corner of the 10th floor. Nearly all the NW and SW corners facing the NYC skyline were assigned to Governing Body members, and the few that weren't taken by them were assigned to 4 Bethelites at once. But these rooms each had their own bathrooms (in other buildings you could share one down the hall) and you'd still have more than double the space you would get when 2 roommates shared a smaller room. They rounded me up to 4 years of seniority on "day 1" (by including the few of months of auxiliary before regular pioneering). The Towers Hotel was just opening up, and in fact a few old ladies still lived in the building from time immemorial. A few allowed themselves to be moved (consolidated) into new identical apartments on another floor, but after a certain age, no reasonable offer can make a person leave their "ancestral home." So we basically waited until they died. (Although some on the construction crew would joke that we offered a little encouragement in that regard when jackhammers touched adjacent walls and ceilings.)

    There were still a few floors that couldn't open up for Bethelites for a couple more years because of this. As they opened up, however, there was a little less demand for this room, as most "bidders" didn't want to share a room with three others. Bert and Charlotte Schroeder had a SW corner, same size as the one I was in, that somehow looked like a large room from a Victorian mansion, due to smart use of a Murphy bed, beautiful furniture and drapes, custom granite countertops, etc. I furnished mine with select items that Brooklyn Heights neighbors threw out on those special days the city Sanitation Department designated for the collection of large items. We took bookcases to the carpentry shop for sanding and repainting, and fold-out sectionals to the upholstery shop. You wouldn't know the place was a dormitory until after 10:00pm.

    Everyone railed against the "evils of NYC" but you certainly hit the correct tone of how many of the older ones with skyline views felt when they moved to Patterson, and a few who more recently moved to Warwick. It's beautiful...but...

    4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    But they were soon transferred to Patterson where they would look out their window and see cows."

     

  9. Because the Towers Hotel is the last piece of Brooklyn property the Watchtower is still in the process of selling, the site I mentioned above now bases its 360-degree views from just above that particular building. I like the view for the nostalgia and great memories, and since the view is from just above my old corner room on the tenth floor. The first picture below shows the window of my old corner apartment perfectly. And just think, it's probably true that someday, not a stone will be left upon a stone of any of these buildings.

    To get to the pictures like the ones below, just to go the property link and click on the [View 360o Panoramic] button.

     

    pic1.png

    pic2.png

    pic4.png

  10. If one were to start with a blank slate on this subject, we might start with all the different "names" by which God is called in the Bible. One might also look at all the names that start with "Jeh..." or "El..." or "Adon.." or "Baal..." all those that end with those same letters ("...jah" "...el" "...baal"). Of course, you'll also come across some special cases, too, like Adonijah, Elijah. One might also compare all the variations of similar language (and quotations) across several books of the Bible to get a sense of the historical trends with divine names and secular names containing divine names.

    Of course, that might take some time, which is why it's nice to find research where other people have already done things like that. And since even the "best" of research is not always accurate, it's nice to find multiple sources and critical reviews, and feedback from others when something we might have overlooked just doesn't quite ring true to someone else.

    For the first step, I thought it might be good to go to a couple of well respected Jewish sources to help understand the thinking behind most Jewish scholars when they develop teachings about "YHWH" in their own language. I found several, but wanted to start with what can be learned from these two sources, because they both reference several Jewish and Hebrew-based sources:

    THE NAME OF GOD, A STUDY IN RABBINIC THEOLOGY
    Author(s): SAMUEL S. COHON
    Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 23, No. 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifthAnniversary Publication 1875-1950 (1950-1951), pp. 579-604
    Published by: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion

    THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH
    Author(s): Raymond Abba
    Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), pp. 320-328
    Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature

  11. How about:

    Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses never buy things from Goodwill [Salvation Army, etc]?

    Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses never say the word "lucky" ["fortunate", etc.]?

    Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses never feed live food to their pets?

    Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses still think that 1918 had to be the year that the apostle Paul (for example) was resurrected?

    Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses never step into a church as a tourist even it houses a museum or interesting art and architecture?

    Etc.

    You lose the point about "classic" JWs from the 1970's. But you can always try to make that point separately, if it's really true.

    If that fourth one up there "throws" anybody, some Witnesses evidently read less dogmatic statements in recent Watchtowers as if they are only "toned down" for the newcomers, when the old ideas about 1918 (or, Russia as King of the North, etc.) are still "accurate knowledge."

     

  12. 35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    ...I looked diligently for that interview with Jared Kushner who bought the Bethel building, and it is no longer there.

    Moved once and then removed. Thought they might put it on the Watchtower's real estate site, but it's not there either. I think this whole real estate site gets removed soon,  so it's the last time to play with function that lets you fly all over Brooklyn Heights and look at the 360-degree views.

    https://watchtowerbrooklynrealestate.com/

    You can even imagine what that parking lot will look like with a rust-colored translucent glass building on the lot.

     

     

     

     

    imagine.png

  13. How good is the evidence that the Christian Scriptures contained YHWH or some variation of that Divine Name?

    There are probably some non-JWs who believe that there is absolutely no reason at all to even entertain the possibility, and there are probably some JWs who believe manuscripts have already been found with YHWH in the NT.  For most of us, the real answer lies somewhere in between. There is a lot of good research on the issue, and this research might be interesting to some of us, whether or not it is compelling enough for anyone to change their mind.

    A previous discussion on the topic became very long and veered off into other topics, too. Hopefully, this attempt will not result in multiple topics or judgmental attitudes about people, and we can focus on the validity of the research itself.

    If anyone wishes to participate, they should feel free to copy anything they wrote in a previous thread. A topic about YHWH in the NT will likely also include topics about the pronunciation of YHWH, YHWH in the OT (LXX, Masoretic, DSS, and other manuscripts), the earliest NT and OT meanings of "name," historical linguistic trends, Greek abbreviations, NT translations, usage by early "Ante-Nicene Fathers," and the various alternatives to YHWH, and comments made by anyone else that might seem partly relevant or interesting (Philo, Josephus, Ebionites, Talmud, Gnostics, etc.). It's still a big topic.

    The arguments that many find relevant are found in Gerard Gertoux, which can be seen here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf

    He references G. Howard, of course, which might even be a better place to start. (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). His ideas can be found online here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

     

  14. 6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

    Useless information

    Very possibly useless, agreed. But it's also a heads up that the Watchtower could be in the news again in unexpected places. The video that John Oliver (HBO) used looked exactly like the Kushner video from jw.org.

    Kushner is in the news as part of an investigation that will probably go a lot longer than planned. Trump's real estate deals will be a part of the mix due to the fact that his son has already bragged about how helpful Russia was in providing money. And now CIM, a secretive funding source, is linked to both Kushner, Trump, and some potentially shady deals that have combined into Kushner's use of foreign banks and investors: (Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, China) and which therefore continue to tie in Manifort and Flynn.

    It doesn't matter whether Trump colluded with Russia anymore to keep this investigation going. (It would not be surprising if there never was any collusion with Russia, and if Russia never tried to "hack" the 2016 U.S. election.) The problem is that the Trump family has long been involved in shady money deals, and there are several stories like the one in the report that involve mafia, foreign money launderers, lying to investigators, etc, that go all the way back to the 1980's. Remember, too, that Trump's former transition advisor, Chris Christie, put Jared Kushner's father in prison. One of those old stories (2007-2010) was alluded to in the report:

    7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    Condo buyers sued Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and Donald Trump Jr., saying they lied about how many units had been sold. The Manhattan District Attorney began investigating whether there had been criminal fraud.

    So, just a heads up. Political investigations can take on a life of their own.

  15. At about 4:50 pm, yesterday, WNYC introduced a story with a lead that included something like: 'Next, we'll discuss the purchase of the Watchtower buildings and Jared Kushner.'

    At the time it was on the radio, Kushner had not yet been made a part of the FBI story that gained traction to be a bigger part of the political news just a couple hours later.

    This story does not reflect negatively on the Watchtower, of course.

    But there is no doubt that if this particularly venture fails as one of Kushner's bad deals (he's made other bad deals along with good ones) the Watchtower will continue to be mentioned. (A comedian, John Oliver, spoke of these bad deals while making fun of the Watchtower deal just a couple weeks ago. He used Kushner's quotes about what he wanted to do with the Watchtower buildings, but Oliver never mentioned the "Watchtower" itself.) What makes some people worry about Kushner's deal, is that Kushner buys the Watchtower's multi-block complex down by the Brooklyn Bridge for more than a third of a BILLION dollars. Then he gives the Watchtower Society even MORE, another third of a BILLION, for a single parking lot!

     

  16. From http://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-kushner-little-known-business-partner

    Donald Trump and Jared Kushner Meet With Business Leaders, January22 2017

     
     

    The Watchtower in Brooklyn Heights is one of the most noticeable edifices in New York. It’s a complex of buildings on a bluff above the East River, with a sign on top that flashes the time and temperature. It used to be the world headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    But today, workers are preparing to give it a makeover. Like so much else in Brooklyn, the Watchtower has been sold to developers. It changed hands last August, shortly after Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination for President.

    The timing is relevant, because the buyer was Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. At $340 million, Kushner’s purchase of the Watchtower was one of the biggest real estate transactions in Brooklyn history.

    Kushner didn’t buy the Watchtower alone. He had help from a company called CIM Group, a private equity firm based in Los Angeles. Over the years, documents show, CIM has done at least seven real estate deals that have benefited Trump and the people around him, including Kushner. Those deals included stabilizing the scandal-plagued Trump SoHo hotel, a key Manhattan holding for Trump and his children Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr.

    At the same time, records show, CIM Group, with approximately $19.7 billion under management, has pursued an array of lucrative government contracts, pension investments, lobbying interests, and a global infrastructure fund, all of whose fortunes could benefit from a Trump presidency.

    While both Kushner and Trump have distanced themselves from their businesses, neither man has divested. Ethics experts including Kathleen Clark of the Washington University School of Law say that because of the two men’s ongoing business interests, the web of connections with CIM is troubling, even if no laws are broken.

    “Trump gives new meaning to the idea what’s good for Donald Trump is apparently good for America,” Clark said. “He doesn’t actually seem to have a conception of the public interest outside of himself or his company or his family. That’s astounding.”

    The White House declined to comment for this story, but in the past has defended Trump and Kushner’s business ties, saying they’ve been vetted and are in compliance with laws and regulations. CIM declined to comment on potential conflicts.

    What is CIM?

    CIM Group is certainly known at the top echelons of New York real estate. But the company itself — its character, its founders — seem to leave few traces beyond the properties in which it invests.

    “CIM stands out as being very secretive,” said Konrad Putzier, a reporter for the Real Deal magazine and website who has covered the company for several years. “The fact that we don’t even know what CIM stands for says it all.”

    A spokesman said in an email "CIM stands for CIM…that is all."

    CIM was founded in Los Angeles in 1994 by Shaul Kuba and Avi Shemesh, two Israelis, and Richard Ressler, a former New Yorker with private equity in his family — his brother Tony Ressler co-founded industry giant Apollo Global Management with his brother-in-law, Leon Black.

    CIM’s strategy is to get good returns for investors by investing in undervalued urban real estate. The firm quickly became known in California for courting influential politicians and donating tens of thousands of dollars to a series of statewide political action committees.

    In 2004, the firm acquired a package of properties that included the Kodak Theatre (now the Dolby Theatre) in Hollywood, where the Academy Awards are held. They purchased the real estate at a deep discount, after the previous owner ran into financial difficulties.

    A few years later, CIM persuaded the city of Los Angeles to arrange a $30 million HUD loan to reconfigure the theater to stage shows from Cirque du Soleil. The arrangement was supposed to last a decade and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity. Cirque’s show, however, fizzled after little more than a year.

    CIM has plenty of friends in Los Angeles, but it also has plenty of critics. Dennis Zine, a retired police officer and former city councilman, helped the company win the right to develop the derelict Reseda Cinema, which appeared in the opening sequence of Boogie Nights. Zine said CIM promised big things, but then neglected the project, embarrassing him in the process.

    “They burned their bridge with me,” Zine said.

    CIM Moves into New York

    Throughout the early 2000’s, CIM kept rolling up cash, in part by drawing investments from public pension funds like those in New York State  and California. In 2010, when CIM made its first foray into New York, the two states had more than a billion dollars with CIM. Neither pension fund would discuss the reasons for their investments.

    It was a great time for investors with an appetite for risk and the potential big payouts. The financial crisis had wiped out big banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Those that were still around were barely lending, and many New York developers were struggling to pay their bills.

    One of those was Harry Macklowe, who had acquired the site of the old Drake Hotel in Midtown Manhattan but lacked the money to build. Court records show Macklowe had tried to work out a deal to finance the project with Paul Manafort, who would later become Trump’s campaign manager, and a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash who had friendly relations with the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. But those negotiations went nowhere.

    Then, in January 2010, CIM partnered with Macklowe to erect what is now known as 432 Park Avenue, the tallest residential tower in the Western Hemisphere.  One unit later sold for $95 million.

    Later that year, CIM saw another opportunity: the Trump SoHo.

    Though the condo-hotel project had been announced on “The Apprentice” finale in 2006, it was troubled from the start. Neighbors were immediately alarmed and upset with the idea of an outsized tower in the low-rise, chic district.

    Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, recalled that the project was plagued with problems. He said there were “deadly construction accidents, bodies being exhumed on the site from a 19th century abolitionist church, falling objects from the building.”

    Just after a gala ribbon-cutting for the Trump SoHo in the fall of 2007, the New York Times reported that one of principals in the building partnership, Felix Sater, had been convicted of assault for cutting a man with a broken margarita glass in a bar fight. He’d pled guilty to a stock fraud scheme. Another principal, Kazakh-born Tevfik Arif,was arrested on child-prostitution charges in Turkey. He was later acquitted.

    It was, as Berman described it, “just an endless array of scandals and connections between the financiers and Russian and Central Asian mobs.”

    Condo buyers sued Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and Donald Trump Jr., saying they lied about how many units had been sold. The Manhattan District Attorney began investigating whether there had been criminal fraud. The lawsuit was eventually settled, with the plaintiffs required to sign non-disclosure agreements. With few witnesses, the D.A. dropped its probe.

    By 2010, the partners behind Trump SoHo, were falling behind on their construction loans, and the lenders were threatening foreclosure.

    That’s when CIM stepped in with a reported $85 million lifeline.

    Important Partners

    The same month CIM saved Trump SoHo, December 2010, CIM bailed out the project’s  co-developer, Tamir Sapir, on two other properties he owned: 11 Madison Avenue and the William Beaver House in Lower Manhattan. In all, CIM spent more than a half-billion dollars and gained a stake in some prime New York City properties.

    “There was a short window of opportunity that they just seized,” said the Real Deal’s Putzier.

    CIM also soon embarked on its first venture with Kushner, an office building at 200 Lafayette Street. The New York Post reported that when they sold the building in 2013 — after $30 million in renovations — the new buyer paid three times as much as Kushner and CIM had initially invested. CIM and Kushner also appeared to turn a quick profit on another jointly-purchased office building, 2 Rector Street.

    “The connection with Kushner, it’s very fitting,” Putzier said. He noted that the Kushner Companies own 20,000 apartments and 13 million square feet of office and industrial space, “but...they’re a family company, so when they do a lot of deals they usually need a partner with a lot of equity to help them, and that has often been CIM Group.”

    Kushner Companies agrees. In a statement, President Laurent Morali — who replaced Jared Kushner as the firm’s top executive after Kushner went to work in the White House — said “CIM is a strong longstanding partner with a developer’s DNA. They can work through complicated situations, are thorough and strategic, yet also make quick decisions.”  The feeling is mutual: CIM said in a statement that it has “strong, collaborative relationship with the team at Kushner, which has proven to be a valuable local partner.”

    CIM also said it “has only one business relationship with a Trump-related company” — the Trump SoHo. The Trump Organization declined to comment for this story; it manages the property under the terms of a licensing agreement.

    "The headline attraction of being somehow even tacitly aligned with the President of the United States could provide an incredible fundraising opportunity if they play it right, if they spin it the right way," said Serge Reda an adjunct professor at Fordham Business School. While the specifics of CIM's pitch to investors are unknown, Reda said it would be expected that a private equity firm would discuss its record.

    When CIM started making deals with the Trumps and the Kushners, its executives had no idea their business partners would one day occupy the Oval Office. But now they do, and ethics experts say that puts CIM’s connections to the First Family and its significant government business dealings in a new light.

    The full extent of CIM’s government ties is not known; much of its business is private, though some investments are publicly traded. In public disclosures, CIM said it received annualized rent of $37.7 million from the General Services Administration and other federal agencies. The company said that losing business from a downsized government "could have a material adverse effect."

    CIM also depends on the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, which provides a path for foreign investors in American real estate to obtain U.S. green cards. According to the non-partisan research group Opensecrets.org, CIM spent $430,000 on federal lobbying in 2015, putting it among the top ten real estate firms lobbying on that issue. CIM listed preserving the EB-5 program as a major lobbying priority.

    This is the same program that Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Meyer, one of his siblings who now runs the family business, was recently promoting in China.

    There’s one more program CIM might benefit from, which could dwarf its profits from EB-5, rents or pensions. According to SEC disclosures, CIM has an infrastructure investment fund which it acknowledges is sensitive to “regulation” and “political events.”  If Trump gets an infrastructure bill passed, funds like this could earn many millions from projects like roads and tunnels.

    Kushner is at the center of the administration’s building plans. In March, the White House announced that he would head an “Office of American Innovation” whose mandates include “creating transformational infrastructure projects.”

    "Whether the parties are doing something untoward or not, the situation creates doubt, and it will follow the President throughout his term as long as he owns his business," said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or CREW. "It’s a question we shouldn’t be having to ask.” His group is suing the president for violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

    Last December, as the president-elect was preparing to move to the White House, the firm did one more deal with Trump-world: CIM helped Kushner Companies buy 85 Jay Street, a parking lot in Brooklyn, for an eye-popping $345 million.  

    Watch that space.

    http://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-kushner-little-known-business-partner

  17. 12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Surely the same GB member who told you of certain doings also told you about Proverbs 11:13. Clearly, there is something 1 Corinthians 5: 1-8esqe about your posting this here.

    The time period in which I worked for this particular GB member lasted 5 years, although it was rarely full-time. But it was a very topsy-turvy time at Bethel, and even for this GB member himself. One of the persons who worked on the Aid Book appeared somewhat effeminate in some of his mannerisms and this was sometimes used as a threat against him, not because he was homosexual --I'm sure he was not-- but because the Aid Book itself had stirred up some issues, resulting in elder arrangements, and therefore would cause a re-defined GB arrangement, and the questioning of most of our interpretations of chronology, prophecy, and so-called prophetic dramas, among many other things.

    Since I considered both of these men to be nearly best friends at the time, the subject of "questionable sexuality" came up. He didn't want me associating too closely with the Aid Book researcher, who was also very good friends with Ray Franz, having both worked on the Aid Book together.

    I say this because, it wasn't a matter of completely forgetting about Proverbs 11:13, because it wasn't like anyone actually revealed a confidential secret. I lived next door to Greenlees and was one of many who understood why there were rumors of his lapses. Chitty was already known from a long history of his friendship with Percy Chapman, who had been the Branch Servant for many years in Canada, and who was more openly homosexual. Rutherford didn't have a problem with him, but Knorr did. There were hushed rumors about Chitty and a "lover" that had therefore made the gossip rounds for many years. But I would agree with your sentiment about this not being a cause for accusation in Chitty's case. It was my guess, and this particular GB brother's claim, that nothing should be done unless someone acts on his proclivities, or unless the rumors themselves become damaging. He put both Chitty and the Aid Book researcher/writer in the same category (although I would disagree that they belonged in the same category). And, finally, it was only the rumors that finally got Chitty removed from Bethel and removed from the GB, according to this same GB source. Also, in the case of Fred Franz being held in high "a-steam," I went there myself once, against the advice of my roommate who said he had gone twice but it was very, very weird. I went once and I agreed with my roommate. I also agree with you, however, that times have changed. In my high school, we all took our showers together after gym, and in the Bethel factories, they did the same thing. This had a completely different "vibe" to it, however.

    By the way, I also put child abuse and homosexuality in completely different categories, although I realize that there is a small area of potential overlap, just as there often is with heterosexuality.

    My own reason for naming persons in such cases I can detail later. I will only name dead people, and only name names when other persons are already aware of it and have also already revealed these same things. The main point, as you can tell, is that even a little exposure can keep us from becoming too self-righteous as an organization, or keep us from thinking that hiding something for a while will keep things hidden forever. I've seen plenty of evidence that exposure actually helps in the long run, while trying to keep all dirty laundry under wraps just makes it worse for all of us, and for potential converts, too.  

  18. 6 hours ago, Nicole said:

    Why did the elders report this crime yet have refrained in countless other child molestation crimes?

    Because this is now demanded of them by law, and the legal department of the Society gives them strict instructions to carry it out the letter of the law if they have not already done so.

    Notice that this method of dealing with a person actually increases the trust we have in elders, increases the respect given to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion that does not tolerate such things, and makes it far less likely that anyone could expand a lawsuit to include liability to this "brother's" congregation or branch. Had this not been immediately exposed to the authorities, a legal liability connection to the Society could be made through claiming bad process and bad training.

    Had this been an abuse of a child under similar circumstances, the elders should also make sure it is reported according to all current procedures, as I understand them.

    Using drugs from medical waste to maneuver to abuse someone sexually is a whole other level of abhorrence.

  19. 5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

    Third Plague Pandemic is the designation of a major bubonic plague pandemic that began in Yunnan province in China in 1855.[1] This episode of bubonic plague spread to all inhabited continents, and ultimately more than 12 million people died in India and China, with 10 million people killed in India alone.[2] According to the World Health Organization, the pandemic was considered active until 1959, when worldwide casualties dropped to 200 per year.

    My point was an attempt to counter the idea that such terrible things will always, unavoidably get worse due to the implication that this means we give up on trying to do all we can to help. It sounds defeatist. Also, even if we knew absolutely that things would get worse and worse, would this mean that we would not wish to do everything in our power for our brothers and sisters, if not also to even set an example as a light to the world?

    Sometimes, when humans put some effort toward it, we learn how to counter serious problems. That's why I brought up the huge effects of correcting the common belief that germs didn't cause disease (and corollary beliefs). When these ideas were corrected, most plagues and many other causes of death also became much more manageable. I consider AIDS to be a major plague, the Spanish Influenza, and similar flu strains. There are still deadly ebola outbreaks, cholera, etc. But we as a human race have learned about cause and effect factors.

    I used 1919 as the last date because I believe this was the year in which the last major big "plague" (the Spanish Influenza), tapered off. Wikipedia says  it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. I wasn't saying that this can't happen again. I was saying that humans have found ways to minimize the former devastating effects of these to such an extent that the world's population growth rate has been effected.

    (Also, of course, I don't know why your point about 1855 should serve to modify the remark. For me, it's part of the evidence I was presenting.)

    5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

    And actually strikes me as likely to reflect a highly Ameri/Eurocentric view, as does the whole child abuse debate.

    For me it wasn't just Ameri/Eurocentric. At the time I was including progress albeit slowly, against female circumcision, female infanticide, child labor, child brides, excessive corporal punishment, and many related issues that slowly progress through exposure of these as international human rights issues. Again, however, it may get worse, but we still want to avoid using the idea as a kind of defeatism against doing what we can to expose the issue wherever we become aware of it. It's a good work to expose it, and especially to help those related to us in the faith.

  20. 4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. 

    I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."

    4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

    I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.

    So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.

    With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.

    I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.

    So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

  21. The caption below the picture in the link says approximately the following in Portuguese:

    A new line of research, known as intelligent design, believes that the complexity of life and the perfection of nature proves the existence of a higher being. At the core of research in science, faith and society, newly opened by one of the largest universities in São Paulo, in partnership with American institutions, scholars discard the creation of the world by mere chance and analyze genetic codes as a kind of 'signature of God '.

    Of course, "intelligent design" is actually an old line of research, not a new one. And everything else said about intelligent design here in the above quote is correct. However, these attempts to make it seem like a science are extremely flawed and nearly always end up embarrassing themselves by joining with "young earth" enthusiasts who claim the earth (and sun, for that matter) are no more than 6,000 years old. They often either deny the existence of dinosaurs, or say the fossils were placed here by God or Satan as a test of our faith, or claim that dinosaurs were alive when Adam named them, but died in the Flood.

    The idea that DNA is a kind of signature of God is a good way to put it. But throwing in the idea that the NAME of God might be found in DNA is completely fake. By whatever methods anyone can tell you that the name YHWH is in DNA, those same methods will also be able to prove that the name Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebul, Devil, Hezekiah, Lincoln, Trump, Hitler, Jesus, Putin, Petunia, Sally, etc., are found just as easily -- because anything can be done with numbers. People will see what they want to see. (A little like 99% of all the so-called Biblical chronology predictions that have gone on for the last 1,000 years.)

  22. 5 hours ago, bruceq said:

    Unfortunately child abuse will only get worse as this system goes down. It is found  everywhere in the world.  In the First Century the Christians also had a problem with "such immorality as is not even among the nations" 1 Cor. 5:1 [also chp 5, 6 and 7 also deal with this incident]. The incident in this case was "incest" which can be child abuse if the victim is a child. Of course in the Corinthian congregation Paul was counseling them because they were not handling it correctly. Yes Christians including those in authority do make mistakes but eventually as noted in this Scripture it was handled properly although many in the world may have handled it differently.

    Not every problem needs to get worse as the system goes down. Plagues and flu that have killed millions of people may have seen their worst days from the Middle Ages until about 1919. Soap and a better understanding of germs and cleanliness (clean water, etc) has likely been the reason that the population of the world has grown so rapidly especially in the last two or three generations since 1919.

    The Watch Tower publications were not the only sources of bad (false) information about germs, up until as recently as 1931. Note: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/09/yes-there-really-are-people-who-dont-acc/

    Of course, we have had multiple plagues in the world from the even before Jesus predicted that these things would continue to occur. And we could be hit with something unexpected and terrible in the near future, but plagues are no longer the kind of worry they were during the days of exploration from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Lack of plagues results in rising populations and therefore food shortages, however.

    Child abuse might actually be another matter that gets better, not worse, as the system heads towards the end. More public awareness (including families of course), and more education, and more alert institutions (religious, educational/academic, health, government services) can make a huge difference, especially as children are made aware of the potential problem at younger ages. Although there is still scrutiny and a lot of news about the problem, I think the situation might already be improving. The circuit overseer in my parent's congregation, Kent K*rr*s.,  in private conversation, claims that the problem is much rarer in the past few years than it was 10 years ago. I suspect the same is, or will soon be true with better vetting in the Catholic churches, too. My aunt is a lapsed Witness who attended a funeral for a friend in a Catholic Church about 4 years ago, and picked up a letter from the archbishop to all members in the back "foyer" of the church that announced that their new priest was on leave for an investigation into such a scandal, and that this was especially difficult on all church members since their bishop had just been removed indefinitely although he claimed innocence of similar charges. The archbishop promises that great care will be taken to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

    I understand your point about bringing the incest problem from 1 Cor 5 into the mix, although that was not at all about child abuse. The idea that even the world might have handled this particular problem better than the Corinthian congregation was handling it is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. 

    But the real point I wanted to make was that it seems like a real non sequitur when you add this:

    5 hours ago, bruceq said:

    Jehovah's way is always the best way even if we do not understand why Jehovah may do certain things in certain unusual ways. After all was Jehovah guilty of child abuse when he told Abraham to "tie up the boy" and then hold a knife to him to kill him?  Who dares tell Jehovah that his way was wrong except of course Satan and his minions. Genesis 22!

    Of course Jehovah's way is best! But your logic is hard to follow here. What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse? And how is handling child abuse in any way akin to telling Jehovah he was wrong in Genesis 22?

    It comes across as a kind of defense of the long-standing way in which the Organization has handled child abuse cases just because, for example, we were trying to make excessive(?) use of the two-witness rule (which had the supposed advantage of keeping most of these cases quiet from both the rest of the congregation and the press). Even now there are very few Witnesses who know the identity of more than just a few of the 1,003 child abusers in Australia, for example. I happen to know for an absolute fact that just a very few of these were men that were regularly seen by tens of thousands of fellow Australian Witnesses due to their high positions. There had been an unofficial move-them-around policy similar to what happened in some Catholic dioceses. Something very similar came up in the UK Branch Office so that a few people at the very top lost their positions (a couple years ago) so that the branch in the UK would be in a better position to save their threatened status as a charitable organization. By the way, if you happen to know the three or four top persons who lost their positions, I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.

    Also, I should mention that it is now the Governing Body's position that certain things must be done by the law of the land even if we know that the Bible itself recommended a different process under the nation of Israel. This is why Brother Jackson refused to admit that the Bible supports corporal punishment of children and focused on only one scripture in that regard that could be said to have a non-literal meaning. The rights that Jehovah has to create a prophetic drama by having a specific situation played out is not relevant at all to how we handle matters of abuse today. (When Jehovah asks a prophet marry a prostitute, or cook his food with excrement, or even see just how far a person will go when asked to kill their son: none of these have anything to do with how we should handle child abuse or defend processes just because Jehovah may do certain things in unusual ways.)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.