Anna

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

[I just saw video and I guess this is my way of saying I couldn't disagree more w/ what you've said about video.

This makes me wonder if we all watched the same film.....

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I feel I should remember that those brothers are around and not insist upon my freedoms in their presence. 

Hmmmmm....I have to disagree with you there I think. They are free to leave any time they want and not listen to a word you say. You are here to say what you feel is the right thing to say. We can't please everyone. This is not the Kingdom Hall

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

When I liked the comment from someone who I thought fit the description of ones John says we should not greet, I found I had stumbled someone

I'm not surprised since you give out likes like they were an endangered species! And then you go and like an enemies comment....

Of course, just because someone is opposed to most of what we do and say, doesn't mean we have to dismiss everything they say, even when it's true. Why should that stumble someone if we don't? As we've said on here before: "Truth is truth no matter who says it".  I think it's good to be fair...

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula."

I always wondered about that. Thanks!

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I've known sisters who quit their jobs to pioneer in good part to help solve this issue, which is ironic, because the second most important factor in a sister finding a marriage mate in our circuit anyway, is for the sister to have a job.

That might be so, but I believe it would help if sisters knew how to use their feminine qualities (not necessarily physical) to attract brothers. Spirituality should of course play a big role, but if a sister warns a prospective brother she is interested in, that when she has her monthly days she has to lock herself in her room, eat chocolate and breaks out in pimples is not an attractive visual. This honestly happened to a friend of mine. Needless to say he struck her off his list, despite the fact they were both pioneers and she was physically attractive AND had a job.  If she had kept this to herself, I am sure he would have never noticed had they got married. Some sisters just don’t seem to know that too much information is just too much information.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

  I used to ask my husband if I wanted to send money to family members or anyone because he knows I will never do anything he is not aware of.

I am assuming your husband would let you know ("consult") if he was going to send money to his relatives and not just do it without telling you, and not do anything that you are not aware of, it's called communication.  Marriage is a partnership, where both are equal but only one makes the final decision.

Unfortunately many husbands are quite happy to abdicate their responsibility as heads, as a lot of men can be quite lazy, and so it's easier for them Then there are others who think that the only way to exercise headship is to be a tyrant.  As for women, I would say they are much cleverer than men in matters of the emotions. Men (in general) want to please a woman (and I’m not talking about sex) and feel fulfilled as men when they succeed.  Women can take advantage of that and wreak havoc with men’s minds (Eve, Delilah, Cleopatra, etc. etc.)This is where women wield a lot of power over men and this can be misused much to the detriment of both sexes. A woman can make or break a household, that’s how much power they have, regardless of whether the man acts as the head or not. When the scriptures talk about a woman having respect for her husband, it goes both ways of course. When they respect each other’s God given positions, and respect each other as human beings, only good can come out of that.

Well, that's Anna's wisdom for today. Exhausted myself

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

then it might be difficult to argue that their decision was really based on their own conscience

Couldn't they just say it was based on new information?

6 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It's a tough call for DIY on these matters.

Unless you know what you're talking about yourself of course. I believe each brother and sister owes it to themselves to get familiar with the issue as much as possible, because then they can speak with knowledge, instead of relying on someone else to speak for them.

4 hours ago, Witness said:

You are aware that the GB have taken the “prominent” position over their fellow slaves, don’t you?  You do realize that their fellow “slaves” are to answer to them, and not directly to their appointed Master, Christ?  So you see, anointed ones are to “wash the feet” of the GB.  In fact, every JW “washes the feet” of not only the GB, but also the elder body through their expected obedience to them, and servitude toward the organization.

In all my years as a Witness I have never been aware of that. I wonder why?

7 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, which Reibling foundation is being referred to here, The one in Pasadena CA, or the one in Boca Raton, FL

The one who is also the co founder, chairman and senior partner of Taurus Investment Holdings; Mr. Lorenz Reibling.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW)

LOL! Exactly, that was so weird...you would have thought post- production would have caught that!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.)

Yep, I thought what the heck....?

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices.

Well I for one would never be the one to argue with his math, hehehe

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't.

Yep, noticed that too...

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH

That's the point at which I went a little brain dead for a few seconds...

 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known.

That I didn't know

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.

Interesting

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy.

I caught that immediately and cringed too....very dishonest and banking on the fact that many will not know who Furuli is, like I didn't know, until you told me...

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

Yes, I was surprised any assumptions were made when we as JWs ourselves have admitted we just can't know....

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.

Interesting

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study.

Ahem..

-----------------------

All in all a terrible, haphazard, and unconvincing documentary in my opinion. A waste of time and money.

In any case, I always find the argument about the “correct” pronunciation of God’s name in English useless anyway. Would you say it was pronounced more correctly in Italian? Or German? Or  Chinese? (I mean come on, who speaks ancient Hebrew) It’s even spelled differently in many languages, but we all know we are talking about God's name Jehovah or Yahweh in its Anglicized form, and however else it's pronounced or spelled in other languages you use. It made me wonder what even was the point of the film? At least Knocking was more purposeful.....

 

27 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is there a way to find brothers on LI?

Yes, ones you know, lol (you can find me there too, although I am a sister ). Some Witnesses will have that they are Witnesses in their profile, but many don't... There is one of our elders there as one of my contacts, and every time I see his photo I have to laugh because you would never guess he is a brother (and a good one) because he has a beard, lol. In fact about 85% of my contacts are JW

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..

Thanks, interesting!

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(About 3 AM this morning.)

That's funny, both me and my husband found it hard to sleep last night, was there a full moon or something?

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, and that the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.

Yep, I read this too, maybe from the same website you later quote from, although there are probably a few...

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.) 

You are probably right, I was too hasty to assume. Just because someone is willing to work with the Witnesses doesn't automatically make them sympathisers. Yes, money definitely talks.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

t is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants"

That is crazy and I've heard this before, didn't know he was part of the Reibling family. I knew about their involvement in a medical company that produces blood substitutes, but I didn't know their ties to Knocking as well. The great thing is that now anyone can be a successful detective without leaving their desk, thanks to google. And unfortunately, ex- witnesses make this job even easier because they've already done the work, all you have to do is confirm it. I just checked LinkedIn and wow, Lorenzo is a bigwig (I sent him a request, lol). My gut feelings tell me he is a Witness. Of course I can't confirm this because it doesn't say in his profile, but then it doesn't say in my profile either, but there are far too many Witness connections and leads and also what you spoke about. One can send him an email, so maybe one should just ask . I feel such a small fish in a big pond, but there is a congregation out there somewhere and all in those circles will know who he is and what he does. I know a few billionaire brother who were in the same cong. as me in Europe, and I am sure there are many, many like him, you just need to be where he is. The sad thing is I was sent this film in good faith, that it is a non denominational documentary, and had it not been for Furuli right at the onset, I might not have become suspicious (although the ending was kind of suspicious).  I told my step father who sent it to me and he then began to look into it a bit more and found that indeed it is a "Witness" film. I love how informed we can be if we want, nothing is a mystery anymore. Does it make a difference in this particular case? I don't know...one thing I won't be doing for sure is recommending it to anyone as proof that "even secular experts" recognize, what we as JWs already "know", and I think this will have been the intention of the many who assumed it is not from us. They would have found it faith strengthening, but then when you know the real story.....lol...So then would it be ok to have one's faith strengthened by something that is not what it seems? By something that is actually a false premise?  It's weird really isn't it?

Anyway, what I really want to do now is look at your analysis, which I merely skimmed through up to now, and look at the references you made to the movie. I can already tell a lot of it is pretty much what struck me as well!

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This fellow Furuli's name pops up a lot. There may even be a brief exchange with him somewhere on my own blog - or maybe it was with someone else. I wonder who he is.

I would have never known he even existed were it not for JW Insider. You can just google his name and go to Wikipedia which gives pretty concise info. about him. His name has also been mentioned in our publications, but easily overlooked. He wrote the two articles in WT 2011 about when was ancient Jerusalem destroyed, if I'm not mistaken. Of course there is a lot more interesting stuff, as he is a big supporter of the 607 B.C. question. One can even contact him via a blog. (I think JW Insider had discussions with him)

You have to watch the video @TrueTomHarley

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too.

Yes, I didn't want to mention this though so it wouldn't bias anyone, and left it up to them to do the research if they wanted. It was sent to me as an "independent, secular documentary". Of course, as soon as I spotted Furuli I became suspicious it was not, and then the contents. Just a little search of the names in the credits after the film brings out lots of other info. Many involved are Witnesses but not all. The director Fritz Poppenberg doesn't seem to be a JW, but obviously a JW apologist, Nehemiah Gordon is a Karaite Rabbi (never heard of the Karaite Jews, very interesting) and the sound director Peter Kaizar doesn't appear to be one. There is a website (obviously biased against JW) that analyses the documentary and the involvement of JWs....(but that's not where I got my info from).

I was hoping you would see this post as I was as sure you would have plenty to say (). I look forward to reading your critique later, and respond. 

So how was it? @JW Insider Did you get answers to any of those questions?

I still can't believe I missed several chances to go to the Museum. I went and toured the Mill Hill Bethel when our congregation organised a trip to London, and then instead of the museum I went to Kew gardens! I guess my excuse was I was 14 at the time...Then the last time I stayed in London was when I was invited to a Witness ball..and again no museum...This seems to be a kind of pattern with me. I stayed at a friends villa just 30 minutes from Pompeii,  (5 times!) and never once went to that ancient city....instead I went to the beach......

Face palm..

43 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

That is a good point, however some believe when it comes to the bible, it is a clear cut word of God, no progression needed

The problem is, it's not that clear cut is it? Or rather, our understanding of it isn't, our understanding is progressive, and that's the point. Just like understanding how the body functions was progressive for medicine (and still is).

33 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

overlapping generations theory, which definatley could be a whole thread itself.

There are several actually. Here is one of them:

 

 

37 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Here are some suggestions. Maybe you can think of more:

• Jehovah through Jesus the Head of the Congregation corrects them
• they get things wrong so correct them 
• they get things wrong again so correct them again 
• times change
• prophecy is fulfilled
• the world scene changes
• scientific advancements are made
• standards of morality deteriorate
• understanding improves
• ability to explain improves 
• understanding of Bible languages improves
• evidence is unearthed
• etc. etc. etc. etc. 

Sounds like the normal pattern of progress and development such as is made in technology, medicine, science etc...and everything else through the passage of time and history. Such is the limitation of man. So I don’t understand when it comes to spiritual knowledge and understanding, some expect we should comprehend everything suddenly and from day one. And what day would that be? Maybe they can tell us.

I don't

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Jesus eat and drink and seat with his Jewish brothers and sisters who were "sinners", no matter are those people belonged to his domestic congregation of Nazareth or from some other congregation in country of Israel in 1 century. What are you think? With how many disfellowshiped Jew people, disfellowshiped by Jew priests and elders, Jesus made social contacts, talked, eat , said hello on streets, visited them in their homes ...despite  condemnation and reproach he received by priesthood about such way of behavior Jesus showed to his disciples

I am not quite sure what you are implying Jesus did, that we don't so today, but as you say, he condemned the religious leaders because they were far removed from doing God's will, therefor their supposed authority to "disfellowship" had no value or meaning in Jesus's  eyes anyway. He talked to anyone who would listen and gave us a good pattern to follow, in that we will talk to anyone about God's Kingdom, just like Jesus did. My good friend talked to a homeless drug addict for several months, and saw that this person was very receptive to learning about the Bible, so a Bible study was started. Now this homeless drug addict is is no longer homeless, or on drugs, but is one of our sisters.

When Elders disfellowship someone from the Congregation, they do so with the authority from the scriptures. In order to have God's favor and in order to be used by God those who represent him must be morally and spiritually clean i.e. the whole congregation, otherwise as Jesus says, he would remove his favor. Rev 2:5, Jesus also said he hated the deeds of the sect of Nicolaus (which was probably trying to infiltrate the congregation). So it does matter to Jesus and God whether the congregation is morally and spiritually clean or not. "“Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:13)

Of course elders must not become like Diotrephes:  "I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·otʹre·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect.That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us. Not being content with this, he refuses to welcome the brothers with respect; and those who want to welcome them, he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation: (3 John 9-10)

It is to be noted that both Rolf Furuli and Gerard Gertroux are both Jehovah's Witnesses.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And if he organized something that has been, sending to preaching, nothing else.

I'm glad you mentioned the preaching. There was of course a host of other things he taught and did so that his followers would be able to follow in his footsteps.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But it is need to understand how first Christ followers, as Paul who wrote many things about "organizing" in fact imitate Jews congregation that God rejected in the same time. Because they, first christians, was in fact Jews people, and they technically replicate religious system in which they lived. I the same time they tried to integrate NEW Teachings from his Master. New teachings that has been "apostate teaching" according to Jewish Clergy and Mosaic Law.

I don't really see what this has anything to do with what I've been talking about....

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The evildoer who was hang beside Jesus have no one of preconditions that JW said is crucial for salvation. Bible study, changing bad deeds to good deeds, prayers, congregational meetings, baptism...... He do only one thing, just said; "I believe!" So if Jesus accepted just words why you or other JW teaching how this is not enough?

To be fair, hanging upon a stake about to die, I don’t think there was much chance of him doing any of those things even if he tried.  We on the other hand, have much more opportunity to show by our deeds on whose side we stand.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 One report is enough if you believe that is inspired and truthful and that all Word is beneficial. OT and NT. I have permission to called it "old" because i as people from "Gentile" have no obligation to follow or to be in obey to  any of Mosaic law and command. So, i am free to consider and accept it or to be critical in my thinking about OT. The same is with NT also. Because, as i mentioned before, there is some "principles" or teachings that has their roots in OT congregations and Law. And as Jesus teaches, his disciples are not under obligation to obey and follow The Law. But in 1 century first congregation done just same mistake JW doing today, replicate OT Law in Christian congregation.  It is little delicate to discuss on this because it is tricky to see what is problem in fact. And my english is not enough also. Thanks to all who are patient with my grammar and all mistakes in writing :)) 

I am not saying the report is bad, or even that ONE report is not good enough,  what I am saying is that this particular report is not supporting your conclusion because the end is inconclusive, we can’t say maybe this or maybe that happened, that does not prove anything, therefore that one example shouldn’t be used to support your argument. There are many many more scriptures that support the idea that to say "I believe" is not all that is needed for salvation. And have nothing to do with with The Law either.

I don't mind you trying to identify what the problem is, I think your English is very good and I can understand what you are saying, so go ahead!

14 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

we felt as if

Come on, he just felt as if. We all, including him, know it has nothing to do with actual facts, only the warm and fuzzy feeling of relief you get when you have got away from something safely.