JW Insider

The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's media outlet. My opinion is that The Epoch Times is a media outlet that takes advantage of the stupidity and anti-Chinese racism of the West. It is therefore designed to appeal to Western racists and mostly American stupidity. As a financial maneuver, those tactics tap into a goldmine. Falun Gong's rabidly fascist political agenda is not hidden at all. The "movie" starts out: "This is just the essential nature of Chinese Communism. Chinese Communism is evil. Every person it harms is directly attributable to the Chinese Communist Party." I think that the world was extremely fortunate that this particular virus started out in China. China was extremely quick to detect it and give the proper warnings to officials and to the rest of the world. We have never seen such a quick response with so few mistakes for any other virus that has started either here or elsewhere. China made a few errors, and 3,000+ Chinese persons lost their lives, but the overall response was an excellent model for all other countries to follow. It put into operation a combination of testing, lock-down, recommendations, quarantines, notifications, equipping medical personnel, equipping medical research, and sharing the research with the world. The "movie" is full of too many flat-out lies and inconsistencies to even think about taking seriously. I wish I had time to discuss how so much of the anti-Chinese propaganda has already been completely debunked. However, I have a non-Covid health issue to take care of with one of my parents, and will likely be completely logged out of the forum for a couple of weeks. I'd love to get back to this when I'm back. But who knows? By then the U.S. will probably be talking some kind of war with China.

I honestly had no idea that there was really so much concern over picking one pronunciation of YHWH over another. Especially when the actual original pronunciation is not perfectly known. You keep saying things that make me think you really aren't really serious about this at all. I get the feeling you are only interested in the opinions that make it seem like the WTS is wrong, but you take no interest in understanding the entire picture. For example, I don't think that you are the least bit concerned about the transition in English from Hebrew "Y" to English "J." If I see you typing "Yeshua" for Jesus, or typing the Greek form "Iesous" for Jesus, then I'll really believe you are really serious about the Y and J issue. There is really no controversy. I don't think you really believe it's controversial yourself, unless you start spelling Jeremiah with a Y or Jesus or Joshua with a Y. It's almost the same story here. Some languages don't really use a W sound the way English does. In German, it's almost always used only to make a V sound. Even though a lot of English words came from an older Germanic or Saxon word with the W in it. There were evidently differences in the ancient Hebrew pronunciations too. Remember that there were differences in the way that persons in Israel pronounced Shibboleth, where some said Sibboleth, instead. Other differences between Northern Israel and Southern Israel became more "pronounced" over the centuries. Semitic languages, like Aramaic, Amharic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac all evidently had differences from each other with respect to the U, the V, and the W sounds. Reminds of the old joke where a man visits Hawaii, and goes up to an old, distinguished Hawaiian man: Visitor: Excuse me. Can you finally settle this question for me? Is this place pronounced "Hawaii, or Havaii?" Old Man: "Havaii" Visitor: Ah!! Thank you! Thank you! Old Man: You're Velcome. Of course, there is evidence that if a language has cognates in a closely related language, where a "W" (vav) is pronounced as a "B" then it probably had transitioned there from a V sound before it transformed to a B sound. Gordon is correct in claiming that this gives evidence for a V sound, at least among some speakers of ancient Hebrew. In this he agrees with a few scholars that came before him. Of course, this transition might well have occurred 1,000 years after the Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus's day. Not exactly. Just because the "H" was silent and not sounded out like a hiss, it still has an effect on the previous vowel, so that we can be sure the last syllable was NOT pronounced like "wee." Also, it was just as likely not pronounced in the first syllable, "Yah." It's pretty clear that the shortened form of "Yahweh" was "Yah" as in the Bible phrases: "Praise Yah" or "Hallelujah." (You might want to think about how most people pronounce 'hallelujah' before getting too comfortable with a definitive pronunciation of J or Y.) You don't pronounce the silent H in Jah or Yah, do you? Thanks. You too.

I am surprised that you would accuse the Watch Tower Society of this. You are implying that the Watch Tower Society would look at a "miracle" and complain about it. The most recent update from the WTS (2017) is exactly as was already pointed out above: *** nwtsty A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures [2017]*** About a thousand years after the Hebrew Scriptures were completed, Jewish scholars developed a system of pronunciation points, or signs, by which to indicate what vowels to use when reading Hebrew. By that time, though, many Jews had the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Thus, it seems that when they copied the Tetragrammaton, they combined the vowels for the substitute expressions with the four consonants representing the divine name. Therefore, the manuscripts with those vowel points do not help in determining how the name was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Some feel that the name was pronounced “Yahweh,” whereas others suggest different possibilities. A Dead Sea Scroll containing a portion of Leviticus in Greek transliterates the divine name Iao. Besides that form, early Greek writers also suggest the pronunciations Iae, I·a·beʹ, and I·a·ou·eʹ. However, there is no reason to be dogmatic. We simply do not know how God’s ancient servants pronounced this name in Hebrew. In spite of this newer scholarship from current scholars who present a "vowel" based pronunciation, including IAO, IAE, and IAOUE, the 2017 Study Edition then goes on to explain that the NWT chooses "Jehovah" (in some NWT languages: Yehovah) based on much older scholarship: *** nwtsty A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures *** Explaining why he used “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh” in his 1911 work Studies in the Psalms, respected Bible scholar Joseph Bryant Rotherham said that he wanted to employ a “form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.” In 1930 scholar A. F. Kirkpatrick made a similar point regarding the use of the form “Jehovah.” He said: “Modern grammarians argue that it ought to be read Yahveh or Yahaveh; but JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the English language, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord.’” I should also add that Nehemia Gordon's reasoning is actually quite old. It's the exact same reasoning, based on the exact same Masorete-based sources, like the Aleppo mss., that influenced Catholic scholarship (many centuries ago) to produce Iehoua / Iehouah (Jehovah) from those same Hebrew vowel-pointed manuscripts.

You don't have to convince me. I already accept the name Yehovah as a perfectly acceptable pronunciation. Naturally, I use a "J" in English (Jehovah) but I stayed with the Bethel family in Wiesbaden for about two weeks, where the German equivalent for Jehovah is Jehova (NWT) and is therefore pronounced exactly as one would pronounce "Yehovah" in English. It's true that Hebrew is written only with consonants, but you already know that sometimes those consonants can be used as vowels. (Just like Arabic.) The consonant "yod" is sometimes the "I" vowel, and the consonant "vav" is sometimes the O or U vowel. Also, just as Cesar Chavez (Allen) said, the H can be silent, especially at the end of a syllable in Hebrew words and names. Also, you probably already know from English that the Y can be a vowel. (For that matter, although unrelated, English words from Welsh can use W as a pure vowel as in the words cwm, and crwth.) I'm sure you also know that certain pure vowel combinations from several languages are transliterated into English with a Y. (Greek words ending in -IA, several Russian endings, etc.) And Cesar Chavez, above, is absolutely right about the relationship of W to UU: "double-U." Josephus was a man who lived during the time of Jesus' apostles, and says he was a priest, and therefore would have known the pronunciation 1000 years before the Aleppo text was written. And he indicated that he knew the "correct" pronunciation. So when he says that the four consonants were "four vowels", we might think about what he would have meant: Through diphthongs and vowel combinations, we know already that certain combinations of pure vowels will produce the Y and W sounds in many languages. For example, many English speakers say "triage" as "treeYage" or a Hawaiian "luau" as "looWoW.") Calling "H" a vowel instead of a consonant implies that it was silent at the end of each syllable, or refers to its effect in producing the previous vowel. This would happen if YHWH was pronounced something like ee-ah-oo-eh (eYAHuWay or Yahweh) in the time of Josephus. This fits exactly what Clement said around 200 C.E., spelling it more like: 'iaoue, which is also an approximation of Yahweh. Whether Josephus and Clement were right, nearly a millennium before all the major Masorete manuscripts, we don't know. But we do know that pronunciations of all words changes over time. Look how English has changed from Middle English in one millennium. Therefore "Jehovah," or "Yehovah" are perfectly acceptable versions of whatever and however people have pronounced YHWH throughout history (imo). ----------------- We should also keep in mind that the Masoretes (Aleppo text, etc) changed several other things in the Bible, not just the half-dozen different vowel pointings on YHWH. For example they changed "YHWH cursed" to "YHWH blessed" in several places. (The NWT usually follows the Masoretic text, but corrects this theological "correction" that the Masoretes added.) This is known as the "tiqqune sopherim" and has been discussed and explained for many years in the NWT notes. It involves one type of "theological" change that the Aleppo text, for example, "adds to" or "takes away from" the Hebrew original text: (From the book "Yahweh's Council" by E.White referring to the book "The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament" by C. McCarthy.)

No. I understand your claim, but here's why I'd have to say it's astrology. It requires the identification of constellations that go beyond any Biblical identification of those constellations. For one constellation to represent the woman, you would have to know that pagans named this group of stars the Virgin. This particular group of stars could just as easily have been used to represent a goat, or a snake, but pagans drew a "Virgin" around it. (By the way, a woman who gives birth is not by definition a virgin.) Then the next group of stars associated with this "sign" had been identified as a "Lion." For all you know the Bible's version of the "Women" constellation is "Orion" or "The Big Dipper." Curiously, there is no Lion and no Virgin mentioned in Revelation 12. There is a non-virgin Woman, a Dragon (the star Draconis?), and a Snake. Where are those actual "constellations" if they are supposed to appear in the heavens? There are very few constellations mentioned in the Bible. Kimeh and Kesil are in Amos, repeated along with Ash in Job, but we have no real idea which constellations these were. The fact that translators have had to guess at the constellations meant, indicates that the Hebrews did not follow the Babylonian system at that time, from which many of the current names have derived. Also, the idea uses deception. It requires you to miscount the number of stars associated with the constellation, and then it requires you to pretend that 3 planets are to be counted along with the 8 miscounted stars to make 12 stars. If this was so important, do you really think that Jehovah or the Bible writer could not have picked the actual word for planet? Greek does have such a word: planetes. Also, Venus and Saturn are the only external planets mentioned in the Bible. The planetary alignment required here uses Venus, Mars, and Mercury. It's impossible to identify for sure the stars named in Job. It's possible that some of these other star constellations and planets do get mentioned in the Bible, such as the claims made for 2 Kings 17, but look at the context: (2 Kings 17:30, 31) 30 So the men of Babylon made Sucʹcoth-beʹnoth, the men of Cuth made Nerʹgal, the men of Haʹmath made A·shiʹma, 31 and the Avʹvites made Nibʹhaz and Tarʹtak. The Seʹphar·vites would burn their sons in the fire to A·dramʹme·lech and A·namʹme·lech, the gods of Seph·ar·vaʹim. (2 Kings 23:5) 5 So he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had appointed to make sacrificial smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, as well as those making sacrificial smoke to Baʹal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations of the zodiac, and to all the army of the heavens. . . Also, any person who promotes this idea has be deceitful in claiming that it "appears".in the heavens. Of course, it never appears except on a computer screen using astronomy software, because you can't see any of these constellations or planets while the women wears the sun as a garment. And I suspect Mercury was even less visible to the naked eye than some of the actual constellation's stars that were discounted because they would have thrown off the count. If it didn't "appear" then it can't fulfill Revelation 12: "Then a great sign was seen in heaven" Anyway, I think we covered that before. On average, it happens about every 240 years. It will randomly happen again according to the same astronomy software. Also, coincidentally, the last time it happened (Sept 24, 1827) was right there in the time period between two great signs in heaven that Charles Russell taught about in the early 1800's. Between time the sun did not give its light (May 19, 1780), and the time when the stars fell from heaven (Nov 13, 1833). Russell taught these dates in the Watchtower right up until he died in 1916. What value do any of these dates bring to any of us spiritually?

This probably is getting tedious, but just three more important points from the same author. One is about how Josephus, who as a priest claimed to know the pronunciation, indicated that YHWH was not 4 consonants but 4 "vowels," which matches additional historical information from the centuries just surrounding Josephus. This is from page 86/87 and I have also included some of the author's quote of Gesenius, p.87, and Gerard Gertoux, p.25. (Gerard Gertoux is often quoted by Witnesses.) Gertoux reference, p. 25: I can't quote the book forever, but again, much of it can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=k9JEAgAAQBAJ

There's another really good book (imo) on the topic which has large parts available for free on Google books: Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-LInguistic Approach, by Steven Ortlepp. The whole book is good, but the most relevant part is a long quote within the book from the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (TWOT): ... ...

I think that if you read about these manuscripts (especially Aleppo and the ones derived from the same sources as Aleppo) you will see that these manuscripts have been studied and copied and recopied for a thousand years. It's impossible that no one noticed a consistent pattern of using at least two major vowel pointings on YHWH. In fact, if any reader of Hebrew had found mistakes on a Masorete scroll, there was a Masorete procedure to fix it as soon as possible, or if unfixable, to never use the scroll, even bury it. There is an excellent description of the reason for two major vowel pointings in the Aleppo scroll (and Leningrad) here: https://yrm.org/yehovah-deception/ For example, the Leningrad codex, a codex that many advocates of Yehovah rely on, contains additional Hebrew spellings. Below are six examples where the Divine name contains different vowel points (transliteration approximate): יְהוָה – Yehwah (Genesis 2:4) יְהֹוָה – Yehowah (Genesis 3:14) יֱהֹוִה – Yehowih (Judges 16:28) יֱהוִה – Yehuwih (Genesis 15:2) יְהֹוִה – Yehowih (1Kings 2:26) יְהוִה – Yehwih (Ezekiel 24:24) The Adonai Preceding Yehovah Dilemma Those who argue that the vowels for Yehovah have no relation to Adonai have some explaining to do. Within the Leningrad codex and the Aleppo codex (see image below) is it merely coincidence that when the Tetragrammaton is preceded by Adonai, it receives different pointing? If Yehovah contains the proper and correct vowels, then why do we see the pattern of inserting the vowels for Elohim in the Tetragrammaton when Adonai proceeds it? This is a serious dilemma for the Yehovah proponents and clearly proves a redundant pattern. This is one of those elementary concepts that slips past the unlearned but is well understood in scholarship. As seen (on p. 15) in the Aleppo Codex in Judges 16:28, the name YHWH appears twice with two different sets of vowel points with the approximate renderings “Yehwoh” and “Yehohiw.” “Yehwoh” derives from the vowel points of Adonai and “Yehohiw” derives from the vowel points of Elohim. When the word Adonai was in close proximity in the text to YHWH, the Jews added the vowel points from Elohim to YHWH, indicating the reader was to read “Elohim.” This was to reduce redundancy with the Hebrew Adonai. Strong’s OT:3069 explains this process: “Yehovih (yeh-ho-vee’); a variation of OT:3068 [used after OT:136, and pronounced by Jews as OT:430, in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce OT:3068 as OT:136]” (for clarification, OT:136 correspondents to “Adonai” and OT:430 to “Elohim”). According to the Englishmans Concordance, OT:3069 is found a total of 615 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Those who support Yehovah do so entirely on the vowel points added by the Masoretes. However, as we find in the Leningrad and Aleppo codices, along with many others, there are several different renderings for the Tetragrammaton. How it is possible to reconcile that the Jews both preserved the name Yehovah and explain why they introduced these alternate Hebrew spellings? Those who believe that Yehovah is the correct pronunciation, their only recourse would be to state that these other spellings were mistakes. However, based on the Talmud, the thought of a Jewish scribe making such a mistake, especially to the Divine name, is unthinkable. Jewish scribal rules required that if a Torah Scroll was found to contain any mistakes it could not be used, unless the mistake was resolved within 30 days. If not, the scroll was to be buried. Knowing this, even if these alternative pronunciations were mistakes, to believe that they were all missed and allowed to remain in the text is incredulous. The other explanation is that the Jews willfully concealed the name with the vowel points from Adonai (as seen in Genesis 2:4 within the Leningrad codex) and Elohim (as seen in Judges 16:28 of the Leningrad and Aleppo codices). Considering the implausibility that the Jews overlooked these alternative spellings, the only logical conclusion is that they were aware and added the vowel points to instruct the reader not to pronounce the Divine name and replace it with the words “Adonai” and “Elohim.” As a side note, the Masoretes would often add the vowel points from Elohim to YHWH when the Tetragrammaton preceded the word “Adonai.” This was to reduce redundancy within the text.

Please remember that we are not experts. What people like me say on a forum like this is my opinion. It might be based on facts, and it's possible that I don't understand all the facts. Please don't make such a big deal out of my opinion, no matter how strongly I believe it and state it.

Actually, that's what literally THOUSANDS of people have done, specifically to determine the original pronunciation of God's name. He SAYS no one had thought of doing this kind of research, but he is just trying to get attention for himself. Evidently a lot of people have believed him. He has never pointed to a manuscript that didn't already have exactly the vowel points that were expected. All the manuscripts he is finding are KNOWN manuscripts with the same vowel pointings that have been known for centuries among scholars. And like I said these are NOT the oldest manuscripts. They are almost all from a THOUSAND YEARS after Jesus and the apostles. Some are even newer than that.

I don't know that Yahweh is correct. I only agree with the Watchtower publications that say Yahweh is more likely than Yehowah based on Hebrew pronunciation patterns for that particular sequence of consonants. But there are a few other issues at play that would allow for Yahowah, even if less likely. There is evidence that there could have originally been an O sound in the middle, although not emphasized. That would allow for either form to morph from YHWH. It's also possible that evidence for the O sound comes from an early use of the W as the vowel for "O." From Wikipedia, under Waw (vav): [Hebrew] Vav can be used as a mater lectionis for an o vowel, in which case it is known as a ḥolam male, which in pointed text is marked as vav with a dot above it. It is pronounced [o̞] (phonemically transcribed more simply as /o/). Also in other Semitic languages, like Arabic, from Wikipedia: Wāw is used to represent four distinct phonetic features: A consonant, pronounced as a voiced labial-velar approximant /w/, which is the case whenever it is at the beginnings of words, but normally occurs also in the middle or end. A long /uː/. The preceding consonant could either have no diacritic or a short-wāw-vowel mark, damma, to aid in the pronunciation by hinting to the following long vowel. A long /oː/ In many dialects, as a result of the monophthongization that underwent the diphthong /aw/ in most of the words. A part of a diphthong, /aw/. In this case it has no diacritic, but could be marked with a sukun in some traditions. The preceding consonant could either have no diacritic or have fatḥa sign, hinting to the first vowel /a/ in the diphthong. ----------end of WIki quote---- In Hebrew, it can also be pronounced as a "U" in Hebrew, but less likely. This is more obvious in Arabic where people say Osama, or Usama, Koran or Quran, etc. Interestingly, it's likely that this was not the original pronunciation, but if the W is read like an O then the YHWH = YHOH could have been read as Ya-Hoh or Yah-oh. And there is a lot of evidence in some of the early LXX, and in historical references that Jews were pronouncing the name Yaho in the centuries up to the time of Jesus and perhaps a little beyond that time. Evidence for the O sound comes up in many of the names that Hebrew speakers used, but it often dropped out because it was likely not pronounced as a long vowel. The name Joshua from the OT in the LXX is spelled Yesous (Jesus), and so in the NT Jesus name was the same as Joshua which in the OT could also be written as Yeshua Yehoshuah or Yahoshuah. So there is a possibility that the name YHWH was pronounced Yehoah or Yehowah. That means that Jehovah could be as good an English pronunciation as any. Changing it to Yahweh could just be seen as pretentious at this point. There are people who say Yeshua today, and it seems pretentious to me, even though it's a more accurate pronunciation.

I assume that Queensland in Australia was named after the Queen of England. I don't see much consistency in your interpretations. The woman in Revelation 12 is therefore related to the Queen of England in your book, and Babylon the Great is New York City. Your "arrogant king" of Daniel 7:8 was going to be Trump, especially if impeached out of office, at 3.5 years of his 4 year term. You used astrology to identify the time period for the prophecy of the woman in Revelation 12 All these things seemed so odd to me, because they come from all over the place, from just about anywhere. So I did a quick google search for persons named Kosonen who claim to be from the same country as you and I noticed that a Kosonen on another forum, like you, moves very easily from saying that something MIGHT be the interpretation and then it changes to something more like: "This IS the interpretation." I'll give you a couple of examples from the other forum: In another place Kosonen starts out with "Could it be that . . . ?" Could it be that the japanees nuclear disaster is fullfilling this bible verse: And a third of the waters turned into wormwood, and many of the men died from the waters, because these had been made bitter. (Revelation 8:11) Here it says the waters had been made bitter, could it refer to radioactive water? Hard to confirm right away but look at the prophetic event mentioned prior to this (Rev 8:8,9) : And something like a great mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. And a third of the sea became blood; 9 and a third of the creatures that are in the sea which have souls died, ... Was this the oil-rig disaster last year? Because the burning oil-rig which fell into the see could well fit to the description "a great mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea" and the spilled oil was not black but red similar to blood. And the third of the see could refer to the mexican gulf. Even the prophecied event prior to this seems to fit what happened when the volcano erupted in Island last year (Rev 8:7): And there occurred a hail and fire mingled with blood, and it was hurled to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees was burned up, and all the green vegetation was burned up. "A third of the earth was burned up" could refer to a third of Island. Also the events prior to this seems to fit the prophecy, it says "And thunders occurred and voices and lightnings and an earthquake." Prior to the oil-rig disaster and the volcanic eruption on Island there was a major earthquake on Haiti. So if this sequence of prophecy is now fullfilling, what is then the next major sign to happen? It says: And the fourth angel blew his trumpet. And a third of the sun was smitten and a third of the moon and a third of the stars, in order that a third of them might be darkened and the day might not have illumination for a third of it, and the night likewise. We'll see what that will be, but some say that a planet X is coming and it could happend that it would travel somewhere between the earth and the sun and thus cause a shadow so that a third of the sun would be darkened. Next in the prophecy, (Revelation 9:1-11) there is a locust plague, and after that a 200 million (2 myriads x myriads) army coming to kill a third of the worlds population (Revelation 9:13-21). There are reports coming that Chinas and Russia are angry with what NATO is doing in the middle east and this could trigger China to take over the Asia and Middle East while USA is going to default. ... Most of that was presented with the words like "could" and "if" which is a better way to present these types of interpretations. But then Kosonen comes back to the same thread, as in the previous one about Trump, and makes statements that are much more sure, as if there is no question any more: And further in the same post: And I would recommend that you wait until there is evidence that something turns out to be verifiably correct, or offer a LOT more scriptural evidence of any particular interpretation, before making it sound like you can be so sure of interpretations like some of the the ones you have offered here.

Probably because it doesn't NEED a symbolic interpretation. But anyone who reads the Bible can still learn spiritual lessons from the past experiences of Israel. From the years after the Babylonians, the pressures came upon Israel/Judea from all around, a COLLECTION of nations over time, just like Gog can refer to a collection of nations. The Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Romans all put religious, economic, and military pressure on "Palestine." There was spiritual pressure not to return to their homeland due to the security of their dwellings after Persia overtook Babylon. Many stayed in the East. At various times, there were bloody battles where they lost literal gold, silver, cattle and goods. (You probably don't realize that "cattle" is a translation of a Hebrew word that can refer to their livestock (sheep, goats, camels). But since the birth of God's kingdom through Christ, all these worldly pressures have come to nothing. Christians have conquered, and risen above the pressures and desires of the world. Even if they kill us they cannot take our eternal life. Ultimately, God protects Christians from Satan's influences in this world, and will protect his people when it comes time for the final judgment on them. It's not up to us to second guess God and decide that he is not powerful enough to protect us from what goes on around us. Did you never read about Daniel in the lion's den? (Psalm 91:7-10) . . .A thousand will fall at your very side And ten thousand at your right hand; To you it will not come near. 8 Only with your eyes will you look on And see the retribution itself of the wicked ones. 9 Because you [said]: “Jehovah is my refuge,” You have made the Most High himself your dwelling; 10 No calamity will befall you, And not even a plague will draw near to your tent.

You are exaggerating similar to the way Nehemiah Gordon exaggerates. Nehemia Gordon has not discovered anything new. What he is doing is pretending that these relatively recent manuscripts are some of the oldest when they are not. He is playing a hyping game, which is a way to get noticed on the Internet these days. Everything that Gordon has found on these Bible manuscripts had already been discussed by Hebrew scholars over the last few hundred years. And of course, all of the truly ancient Hebrew manuscripts do not have vowel markings. This includes the Dead Sea Scrolls from about 250BC to 68CE. And there are hundreds of instances of the Divine Name in them. Also, of course, the older Hebrew markings on stones, and pottery, jewelry, clay, the "Moabite Stone" [Mesha stele] etc., do not have vowel markings, and some of these go back centuries further. The Christian-era Hebrew/Greek scholars, such as Origen [around 200 CE] took an interest in Hebrew manuscripts, along with the LXX manuscripts, and the pronunciation and representation of YHWH in these manuscripts. There were still no vowel points. Some inconsistent attempts at vowel pointing started in the 6th century. Yet, even in the most famous manuscript links between the old and the new Masorete manuscripts, we have the Ashkar-Gilson Hebrew Manuscript from the 8th century with no vowel points yet. As you can see below, there is an example of YHWH in the center of the image below, and there are still no vowel points: The Masoretes started the first useful, consistent vowel pointing system around 850 CE, and the oldest of their manuscripts with vowel pointing come to us in mss from about 950 to the 1100's. And they were still not consistent when it came to vowel pointing YHWH. I copied two examples before when this topic came up, where they sometimes used the vowels that matched the vowels of ELOHIM (God) and usually the vowels that were a closer match for ADONAI (Lord). Gordon simply ignores the ones he doesn't like and pretends to get all excited over the ones that fit his theory, which had already been very well known and dismissed for centuries. The following statements about Nehemiah Gordon and what he is hyping are not absolutely correct either, but they give the correct idea of the problem: https://www.snydertalk.com/2018/05/17/17-2018-snydertalk-yahweh-nehemia-gordon-wrong/ Nehemia Gordon is Wrong The ancient manuscripts that Nehemia Gordon “discovered” aren’t nearly ancient enough. When the vowel marking process ended in about 1000 AD (1,165 years after rabbis took Yahweh’s Name out of circulation), the scribes preparing the manuscripts followed the Oral Law or the Traditions of the Jews and disguised Yahweh’s Name as the ancient rabbis required. What Nehemia Gordon “discovered” is evidence of probably the worst mistake anyone has ever made in the history of the world. He’s contributing to the problem. Earlier in the article the timeline was made pretty clear: Look at the Timeline In about 165 BC, Yahweh’s Name was taken out of circulation . . . . In about 500 AD, the process of creating vowel markings began. In about 1000 AD, the vowel marking creation process ended. About 665 years passed between the time rabbis forbade the use of Yahweh’s Name and the time the vowel marking creation process began. About 1,165 years passed before the vowel marking creation process ended. That’s a long time. For reference, there is a good discussion of the Ashkar-Gilson is here. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_201.pdf A full discussion needs also to look at the variations in spelling and/or vowel pointing from several of the scrolls coming from the time of transition to vowel pointing: AS Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript & London Manuscript, Exo-dus, seventh or eighth-century C.E. BS Scroll Bologna University Library, complete Torah, ca.1155–1225 C.E. ES Sheet of Torah Scroll, Loewentheil collection, Exodus, tenth or eleventh-century C.E. BP Codex British Museum Or. 4445, Pentateuch, late ninth or early tenth-century C.E. DP Damascus Pentateuch, late tenth-century C.E. GP Firkovitch II.17, Pentateuch, 929–930 C.E. AC Aleppo Codex, Tenakh, ca.925–935 C.E. LC Leningrad Codex, Tenakh, 1008–1009 C.E. SC Sassoon 1053, Tenakh, tenth-century C.E

I wasn't going to say anything more, because this is the very definition of a far-fetched idea. I think a few others have stepped in to give the same opinion. There is a much more sensible way of looking at all these scriptures, unrelated to the time periods we might attach to them. In fact, Arauna has said it, even Witness has said it: This makes sense and fits the scriptures on the subject. Just as good. I would include Jesus and the rest of the "seed."

I think that the basic rule for taking attendance at a Memorial is the same as counting attendance at conventions. It's everyone who takes up a seat. If an infant or perhaps even a toddler is in the mother's arms they are not counted. Unbaptized publishers are expected to report, and are counted among the "8 million." Ages may vary, but it should be those young ones, even well below the age when baptism would be appropriate, but who can be expected to report regularly.

No reason true Christians shouldn't use "disaster." It's pretty much the same as "calamity" in meaning, but different in that the word "calamity" doesn't come from "dis + aster" implying a "wrong" or "bad" star. But of course it's lost any association with astrology. We still say "ominous" even if aren't concerned with omens. We say "martial law" even if we don't consider Mars to be a real war god. One could go on and on with dozens of words like this. Don't know if I can help you in any way, Allen, because I make a lot of writing mistakes myself. But one of the ways people can tell you are writing from an "Allen Smith" account is that so often you make statements that mean the opposite of what you intend to mean. For example, the sentence just quoted from you above actually means the same as saying: If people are willing to understand the Bible Student era calculations, then it was meant to replace the Georgian [Gregorian] calendar. In my opinion, I don't think this is what you meant to say. You probably meant that it was not meant to replace the Gregorian calendar. Of course, this idea is not clear from the article, which says that the Gregorian calendar should die "an ignomious death." Yes, and I agree with Rutherford's opinion, as reported by persons who worked with Rutherford when he reportedly gave Woodworth a "vicious tongue lashing" over this calendar. In the Golden Age article (linked above) Woodworth says that the Gregorian calendar is from Satan. Also, it was recommended that Witnesses begin making use of the calendar, which explains the way it handled the possible objection about writing the name "Jehovah" as a month name:

Just a variation of the meaning of the word loaf, I guess.

Evidently some people did flee Jerusalem before he arrived, but if we understand Luke correctly, the Christians were not to flee until AFTER armies reached Jerusalem. So the best window would have to be while the armies were fleeing. As Josephus says, even after this Jewish victory, the Jews knew the Roman army would soon come back even stronger. Our situation is similar in the sense that we can "flee to God's kingdom" without leaving our home. From the perspective of the political boundaries of the world, we are alien residents in this world, as if in an unmarked wilderness. Yet, we can be spiritually fed amidst the spiritual drought offered by the world. A wilderness could be both a place of punishment and a place of protection and saving provisions: (Hosea 13:4-6) . . .But I am Jehovah your God from the land of Egypt; You knew no God except me, And besides me there is no savior. 5 I knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought. Personally, I actually do believe that Revelation can be about the early protection of God's kingdom through Jesus Christ in spite of those attacks at its birth by Satan, even peremptory attacks at the time of Jesus' birth, at the time of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, his death in 33 CE, and the persecution of disciples and apostles in the first century, and their feeding by holy spirit that would result in the Greek Scriptures for us. So it would not bother me at all if the Revelation 11& 12 symbols also work for the situation in 70, as well as other parts of the first century. Fortunately for all of us, we don't have to look for signs that would warn us about the timing of the parousia. Jesus said it would come as a complete surprise and that none of us should worry about the times and seasons. Paul said there was no reason for anyone to write anything about the times and seasons related to the parousia. (I use parousia in the sense of the final royal manifestation that Jesus said would appear brightly like lightning, suddenly and without warning. Not in the sense of a long, silent, invisible visitation that could go on for somewhere between 100 and 200 years.) Jesus indicated that looking for signs was a mistake. They could easily lead to someone to believe that the end won't come as a surprise like a thief, but persons might start believing that more things have to happen between now and the end. You have made this exact claim about the signs you are looking for, which makes it very easy to hold that up to the light of the scriptures and be able to dismiss it as false.

True. But we can't deny that it was written in such a way that it would intrigue people into making guesses. Daniel, too, for that matter. But sometimes I get the feeling that we are guessing now, yet the first audience did not have to guess, because it was so obvious, and they may have had John or his associates around to explain what John knew about the motivations for choosing specific words/symbols/images.

I have hinted at this idea before, because I also have never believed that it is the actual fulfillment of Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Revelation 11 &12. Although I have always avoided them, I know there are books on the topic that would claim something similar. As I read Josephus' "Wars" again last week, I came across some very intriguing points that are rarely talked about. While reading, I am Googling some of the details, like dates, people and various cities he mentions, and have been finding many other materials that I might read someday. Some of these materials do claim that what should have happened prophetically actually DID happen in the period from late 66 (or early 77) to various dates within 70. Some even find periods of 1290 and 1335 days pointed to. I was surprised to see these books dating back to the mid-1800's or before. I just read a few pages of The Apocalypse fulfilled; or, or Answer to Apocalyptic Sketches by Dr Cumming By Philip Charles Soulbieu DESPREZ (1861) on Google Books, and noticed that the author was intrigued by exactly the same points I had marked up in Josephus. True, maybe. But we don't have any specific, consistent dates with respect to the ministry of Jesus. We don't even have any Biblical/secular evidence that it was 33 CE when he died, or if his ministry really was 3.5 years. We assume it was 3.5 years because of how we interpret the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. If we rely on the actual Bible accounts we don't know if it was much more than one year of ministry. And we can't even say if it was 30 CE when Jesus died. Anyway, I'm sure you have already considered the 3.5 years of the time from when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies of Cestius Gallus up until the time that Josephus indicates that the sun and moon were darkened and a great sign was seen in heaven. There are obvious reasons for avoiding it, but there are also Biblical reasons to consider it. (And I don't think the book I linked in this post has it right.)

These are good points. Inside the walls of Jerusalem, they would have heard of the wars around the country, rumors of wars, and would have known to prepare for the Romans coming on their way. For some reason (per Luke) Jesus had not told them to flee at the rumors, but from the actual time when they actually saw encamped armies surrounding the city. As far as we can tell, this full siege didn't actually happen until 70, but there must have been some kind of "surrounding" by Gallus' armies before they tried to breach the city in 66. This would have been quite visible, and Jewish guerrilla forces were reported to be quite active drumming up support within the nation and the city to prepare. They would have spread the news of the most recent successes and defeats and therefore would have known what Gallus was up to when they saw his armies approaching Jerusalem in late October of 66. I think a lot of their "news" was direct word of mouth from eyewitnesses and their own ability to look out their windows (actually, from the top of the walls) and see for themselves. Except when these movements are obvious in front our eyes, from our own windows. This is very true. In fact, I found it odd that there had been a shift in the doctrine such that all these former misinterpretations were turned into "correct" former understandings of who held the position of these Kings at previous times, even though it would change through time. Of course, some of these interpretations were clearly influenced by prior Adventist teachings, et al, about the Anglo-American world power, and totalitarian world powers. This, I think, has skewed the evidence away from realizing that the Anglo-American world power and various allies have usually been far more totalitarian than most of the others powers accused. Russia, right after their unfounded crackdown on JWs, was "low-hanging fruit" at the time it was identified as the "King of the North." It seemed obvious in light of the fact that it had previously been the USSR but was going unidentified for a while just in case Islam could qualify. (This idea was presented in some talks by senior members of the Writing Department after September 2001.) Of course, in the original context, Jehovah's people sometimes found protection with the King of the South (Egypt) and sometimes they were to find protection with the King of the North (Babylon). Jeremiah begged his countrymen to go into exile in Babylon for protection because fleeing to Egypt would not be safe at that time. These were symbols of the nations that appeared to be stronger than Jehovah's people, and therefore become the symbols of "temptation" for protection and flight, when God's people forget about His protection. Therefore, if these "kings of the earth" are revisited in Revelation, then the symbol is no longer necessary to identify with a particular nation. It doesn't matter who they are, they are part of a world (Satan's world) that Christians have conquered through the blood of the Lamb.

The annual method makes the most sense, of course. And the evidence from the 2nd century shows this is how it was understood. I saw some Covid news about priests offering the sacraments (actually bread/wafer only; no wine) to people driving up in their cars. A drive through mass, as it were. I guess even in church they don't often offer the parishioners any wine, but the priest drinks it for them. Do you know if this is common? I wasn't trying to be too clear. It was just a reference to one of the usual type questions we hear around this time of year. I could have also included: "What happened to 1935?" "What if the other sheep are (anointed) Gentiles?" "What about Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14 for Passover?" "What about the apparent contradiction between John and the Synoptics on the date of Jesus' death?" We can bring this back up again for discussion tomorrow.

I've noticed something about the timeline that surely wouldn't have escaped the notice of the escaped Christians. Notice that the above dates show that it was very late October to early November of 66 CE when the opportunity for escape would have been ideal. That's because Cestius Gallus fled Jerusalem close to November 1, 66 and finally fled the country around November 15, 66 when factional civil wars began in Jerusalem. And if the purpose of the escape for the Christians was to continue to be fed for 1,260 days, or 42 months, or three and one-half years, then where would that time period end up after, for example, November 10, 66 CE? If you put dates in Excel or Google [Spread]Sheets you can subtract one date from another and it will give you the number of days apart. Do that for November 10 of 66 CE and April 23 of 70 CE and the difference is exactly 1,260 days. The month Chislev often starts in November, so I pray that this is not in wintertime. Nov 10 66 Apr 23 70 1,260.00 Below, I'm copying some more of the dates from the book quoted above to see if anything significant might have happened around April 23rd 70 CE: AD70 23 April: Titus commences siege of Jerusalem. 7 May: Titus breaches the Third Wall. Mid–May: Titus breaches the Second Wall. Late May: Roman siege ramps against the Antonia Fortress destroyed by Jewish mines and sallies. June: Romans construct wall of circumvallation and new siege ramps against the Antonia Fortress. 5 July: Titus takes the Antonia Fortress. 17 July: Roman assault on the Temple Mount commences. 27 July: Jewish trap immolates the western colonnade of the Temple Mount. 10 August: Destruction of the Temple. 20 August: Siege of Herod’s Palace commences. 7 September: Fall of Herod’s Palace. AD71: Vespasian and Titus celebrate joint Jewish War triumph; execution of Simon b. Gioras. Roman mopping up operations in Judea; fall of Herodium, Machaerus. AD73: Flavius Silva commences Siege of Masada. AD74: Fall of Masada; end of First Jewish War. My spreadsheet says that: April 23rd 70 MINUS November 10th 66 EQUALS 1,260 Days. Of course maybe this is a big coincidence, but I think we can be pretty sure that it crossed the minds of Christians reading Revelation 12 that the recent destruction of Jerusalem, and the escape from Jerusalem for a time period of 1,260 days might have been significant, especially because some of them lived it personally. To them, as they bore witness to Jesus, it had been the great escape of citizens of a new Kingdom of Israel, a heavenly Jerusalem, who followed Jesus command so that they were not otherwise swallowed up in the war that had broken out. It just makes me wonder how first century Christians understood Revelation 12 when they first saw it.

We know about Rome's first attempt to take the city in 66, only because of Josephus. No other account tells us details about it. So it's also from Josephus that we know the Roman army did not inexplicably halt their attack and leave. In fact, Josephus tells us exactly why. The Roman attempts in 66 were not well planned, or well manned, and they tried to take many areas from all over the country first before Jerusalem. And they LOST many of these battles. In fact, the Roman attack on Jerusalem was pushed back by Jewish fighters. Roman armies were driven back and went home, after suffering several losses all over Judea. This is ultimately from Josephus, but also clearly spelled out in a book you can find here: http://www.imperium-romana.org/uploads/5/9/3/3/5933147/osprey_-_campaign_-_252_-_the_jewish_revolt_ad_66-74.pdf Notice that number 13 through 19 show the following: 13. Gallus is badly handled by a Jewish ambush north of Jerusalem and retires to Gabao. 14. Simon b. Gioras hits the rearguard of the Roman column as it traverses the Beth Horon pass and plunders the baggage train. 15. After regrouping for three days at Gabao, Gallus advances to Jerusalem. 16. Unable to take Jerusalem, Gallus orders the retreat to Gabao. He is harassed en route by Jewish fighters. 17. After two days under siege in Gabao, Gallus orders a breakout. His force is ambushed in the Beth Horon pass. 18. Gallus slips away at night. The garrison left behind at Beth Horon Katotera is massacred at dawn. 19. Gallus abandons what remains of his baggage train. The Jews finally call of their pursuit only when Gallus reaches Antipatris. It's pretty obvious why this would be a good time to flee Jerusalem. Jewish leaders and highly stationed Romans fled just immediately prior to this attack, and the fact that Gallus was temporarily defeated, and made to run, made it a perfect opportunity for Christians to flee, too. Note the timeline we can get from Josephus, as found on page 18 of the same linked book: AD 66 Mid–May: Anti-semitic riots in Caesarea. Florus enters Jerusalem in force; demands arrest of anti-Roman militants; defeat of Roman troops in street-fighting; Florus abandons Jerusalem to the rebels. Eleazar b. Ananias leads first aristocratic government. Early August to early September: Factional conflict in Jerusalem; conservatives defeated; Ananias executed. September–October: Sicarii driven out of Jerusalem; wave of communal violence and pogroms throughout Judea. Mid–late October: Cestius Gallus advances into Judea; battle of Gabao; Roman attack on Jerusalem repulsed. Early November: Battle of Beth Horon. Mid–November: Ananus b. Ananus leads second aristocratic government; radicals and militias marginalized; Eleazar and Zealots confined to Temple Mount; Simon b. Gioras driven out; Josephus appointed military governor of Galilee. From 66 until 70 there is infighting among Jewish groups, Roman suppression and finally the devastating attack in 70 C.E.