Midweek Meeting Comments – Jan. 6, 2014

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-07 15:53:20

There has been a concerted effort by the GB to give the impression we have made great advances under holy spirit and the direct hand of Jehovah to understand the divine name and draw closer to him.
Here's a quiz from the exercise of the first nine paragraph's:
1. Since 2002, what increase in insight and understanding of the divine being has been provided by the "faithful and discreet slave" as "food at the proper time?"
Answer: See difference in versions: 2002 to 2014.
2. What Is The History Of The Development Of The Divine Name "JEHOVAH", Prior To The English Translations Of The 1600'S?
Answer:
From the 1984 "Divine Name" brochure pp 17-18
God’s Name and Bible Translators
EARLY in the second century, after the last of the apostles had died, the falling away from the Christian faith foretold by Jesus and his followers began in earnest. Pagan philosophies and doctrines infiltrated the congregation; sects and divisions arose, and the original purity of faith was corrupted. And God’s name ceased to be used.
As this apostate Christianity spread, the need arose to translate the Bible from its original Hebrew and Greek into other languages. How did the translators render God’s name in their translations? Usually, they used the equivalent of “Lord.” A very influential version of that time was the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Bible by Jerome into everyday Latin. Jerome rendered the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) by substituting Dominus, “Lord.”
Eventually, new languages, such as French, English and Spanish, began to emerge in Europe. However, the Catholic Church discouraged the translating of the Bible into these new languages. Thus, while Jews, using the Bible in the original Hebrew language, refused to pronounce God’s name when they saw it, most “Christians” heard the Bible read in Latin translations that did not use the name.
In time, God’s name came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk. Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua. Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (Porchetus’ Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). In this he, too, mentioned God’s name, spelling it variously Iohouah, Iohoua and Ihouah. Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus published a work entitled De arcanis catholicae veritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spells God’s name Iehoua.
The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah, in several verses, and in a note in this edition he wrote: “Iehovah is God’s name . . . Moreover as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah.” From this the practice arose of using Jehovah’s name in just a few verses and writing “LORD” or “GOD” in most other places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text.
In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized Version, was published. In this, the name appeared four times in the main text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) “Jah,” a poetic abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in full in place-names such as “Jehovah-jireh.” (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24)

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-07 16:50:57

Well just looking at the side by side comparisons of the two versions of the book the differences are not quite so slight. It looks as though they are trying to revise the wording that concretely states that Jehovah's name means "he causes to become". It's more of " we believe it means this"... "instead of it means this." Why that was such a huge deal for THEM to change the wording is beyond me. Either people agree with their translation or they do not.

• Reply by hezekiah1 on 2014-01-07 18:01:36

  I wonder if they are getting backlash because of the "silver spear".
  I barely could tell the difference with the wording. However in our congregation many talked about how the GB can now update things in a short time by using ePub.
  Could this be an exercise in this regard? Only time will tell as we go forward.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-07 19:35:11

    Hello hezekiah1 :)
    The wording is definitely different to me. I don't know what motivated them to change it. There is no difference in the conclusion...the conclusion being that they are sticking with meaning of Jehovah's name to be “he causes to become ". In paragraph 8 they essentially state that Jehovah himself explains that in Exodus 3:14 the meaning of his name. In the new version they retracted that statement totally. In paragraph 7 it goes from saying Jehovah literally means “he causes to become “….to it is understood that it means “ He causes to become”. No one has a literal translation of Jehovah’s name

Comment by on 2014-01-07 17:42:24

Comparing the 1984 vs. 2014 information on the divine name, we see how the quality and quantity of our instruction at the mid-week meetings has fallen off - from the sublime meat of God's Word, to the infantile milk presently being offered:
(Hebrews 5:13-6:1) 13 For everyone that partakes of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 For this reason, now that we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity. . .

Comment by hezekiah1 on 2014-01-07 18:06:59

Thanks Meleti
The comment I would make is regarding our part in the service meeting regarding our magazines for January. I see in the km we continue with the self promotion of our website. It seems that we are not asking people to read the bible for help or comfort, but instead to read publications written by men. True they are based on the bible, but if the bible is truly important why don't we just use that to help ones with problems?
The ever growing push to praise men is troubling.

Comment by on 2014-01-07 19:03:26

*** na págs. 17-19 El nombre de Dios y los traductores de la Biblia ***
El nombre de Dios y los traductores de la Biblia
A PRINCIPIOS del siglo segundo, después de la muerte del último de los apóstoles, empezó en serio el apostatar de la fe cristiana predicho por Jesús y sus seguidores. Filosofías y doctrinas paganas se infiltraron en la congregación; surgieron sectas y divisiones, y la pureza original de la fe fue corrompida. Y el nombre de Dios dejó de usarse.
A medida que este cristianismo apóstata se esparció, surgió la necesidad de traducir la Biblia de sus idiomas originales, hebreo y griego, a otros. ¿Cómo vertieron los traductores el nombre de Dios en sus traducciones? Por lo general usaron el equivalente de “Señor”. Una versión muy influyente de aquel tiempo fue la Vulgata latina, una traducción de la Biblia por Jerónimo al latín de uso cotidiano. Jerónimo vertió el Tetragrámaton (YHWH) mediante el sustitutivo Dominus, “Señor”.
Con el tiempo, en Europa empezaron a surgir idiomas nuevos, tales como el francés, el inglés y el español. Sin embargo, la Iglesia Católica presentó oposición a traducir la Biblia a estos nuevos idiomas. Por eso, a la vez que los judíos, que usaban la Biblia en el lenguaje hebreo original, rehusaban pronunciar el nombre de Dios cuando lo veían, la mayoría de los “cristianos” oían la Biblia leída en traducciones al latín que no usaban el nombre.
Con el tiempo, el nombre de Dios volvió a utilizarse. En 1278 apareció en latín en la obra Pugio fidei (Defensa de la fe), por Ramón Martí, un monje español. Ramón Martí usó la grafía Yohoua. Poco después, en 1303, Porcheto de Selvaticis completó una obra titulada Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (La victoria de Porcheto contra los impíos hebreos). En esta obra él, también, mencionó el nombre de Dios, y lo escribió de varias maneras: Iohouah, Iohoua y Ihouah. Después, en 1518, Pietro di Galatino publicó una obra titulada De arcanis catholicae veritatis (Sobre secretos de la verdad universal) en la cual escribe el nombre de Dios Iehoua.
El nombre apareció por primera vez en una Biblia inglesa en 1530, cuando William Tyndale publicó una traducción de los primeros cinco libros de la Biblia. En ésta él puso el nombre de Dios, por lo general escrito Iehouah, en varios versículos, y en una nota para esta edición escribió: “Iehovah es el nombre de Dios [...] Además, cada vez que se vea SEÑOR en letras grandes (excepto cuando haya algún error en la impresión) es, en hebreo, Iehovah”. De aquí, en las versiones en inglés surgió la práctica de usar el nombre de Jehová (Jehovah) en solamente algunos versículos y escribir “LORD” (SEÑOR) o “GOD” (DIOS) en la mayoría de los demás lugares donde aparece el Tetragrámaton en el texto hebreo.
En 1611 se publicó lo que llegó a ser la traducción inglesa de más extenso uso, la Versión Autorizada. En ésta, el nombre aparecía cuatro veces en el texto principal (Éxodo 6:3; Salmo 83:18; Isaías 12:2; 26:4). “Jah”, una abreviatura poética del nombre, apareció en Salmo 68:4. Y el nombre aparecía en su grafía completa en nombres de lugares tales como “Jehovah-jireh” (Génesis 22:14; Éxodo 17:15; Jueces 6:24). Sin embargo, los traductores siguieron el ejemplo de Tyndale y en la mayoría de los casos sustituyeron el nombre de Dios por “SEÑOR” o “DIOS”. Pero si el nombre de Dios podía aparecer en cuatro versículos, ¿por qué no podía aparecer en todos los demás miles de versículos que lo contienen en el hebreo original?
Algo similar estaba sucediendo en lo referente al idioma alemán. En 1534 Martín Lutero publicó su traducción completa de la Biblia, que basó en los idiomas originales. Por alguna razón no incluyó el nombre de Dios, sino que usó sustitutivos, tales como HERR (“SEÑOR”). Sin embargo, él conocía el nombre divino, puesto que en un sermón sobre Jeremías 23:1-8, que pronunció en 1526, dijo: “Este nombre Jehová, Señor, pertenece exclusivamente al Dios verdadero”.
En 1543 Lutero escribió con franqueza característica: “El que ellos [los judíos] ahora afirmen que el nombre Jehová no se puede pronunciar, no saben de qué están hablando [...] Si se puede escribir con pluma y tinta, ¿por qué no debería decirse, que es mucho mejor que escribirlo con pluma y tinta? ¿Por qué no lo llaman también inescribible, ilegible o impensable? Viendo todo el asunto, algo no está bien”. No obstante, Lutero no había rectificado los asuntos en su traducción de la Biblia. Sin embargo, en años posteriores otras Biblias alemanas sí presentaron el nombre en el texto de Éxodo 6:3.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-07 19:17:08

Due to the inclement weather conditions my meeting was cancelled again. It is rare for our meetings here to be cancelled in a row like this. The frigid weather conditions are unbelievable here!
What stood out for me in preparing for the meeting was the Reasoning book’s heading “Members of the Right Religion are Active Witnesses concerning God’s Kingdom”. The GB is clearly drawing the line in the sand when it comes to other religions. It specially cites three qualifiers to be considered an active member of the right religion : proclaiming God’s kingdom as the only solution to man’s problems , sharing in the door to door ministry and the religion has to “equip” you to share in this ministry. Studying the book of Acts we know that 1st century Christians preached in many different settings. However, the emphasis is on “ door to door” when deciding if your religion is the “right” one.
Gen 3:22 stood out to me this time around. I have read this scripture many times but today when I read it today I found myself asking…..Who was Jehovah talking to? Jesus? If so, how did the Son have knowledge of good and bad? What does having that knowledge really mean ? I thought the Questions from Readers would give me some direction :
W03 10/15 p. 27” God’s only-begotten Son apparently had knowledge of “good and bad.” From his long and intimate experience with Jehovah, he certainly learned well his Father’s thinking, principles, and standards. Convinced of his Son’s acquaintance with these and loyalty to them, Jehovah may have granted him some latitude in handling matters without direct consultation with Him in each instance. So the Son would to this extent be able and authorized to determine what was good and bad. However, unlike Satan, Adam, and Eve, he did not set up a standard that conflicted with Jehovah’s”.
Perhaps I am overlooking something. I am not sure how this whole line of reasoning fits with answering this question. I noticed in replying to this reader’s question they shot down the Trinity immediately, although I am not sure if that’s what the reader was asking or implying in the first place? To put it plainly the GB concludes that it was more likely that Jehovah was talking to Jesus than to Satan or other angelic creatures.
Thanks again Meleti for giving us a safe place to express our thoughts on the meeting :)

Comment by katrina on 2014-01-08 05:38:50

yes, I printed out the changes, and I thought, what is this! I really think its to make the b/s feel that the GB is living up to its name as a FDS, providing any food at any time, after all its the 100 anniversary of 1914, little gifts, every one is a buzz with this year, and this just adds a few more candles to the cake.
I have had a few b/s say its the 100th yr since the Kindom was born. I cant laugh, I actually feel sick about it. Love all our brothers.

Comment by on 2014-01-08 06:01:54

I conducted the Close book intro last evening, and after asking repeated questions on the prologue, was unable to elicit any answer mentioning Jesus Christ as the key to open the door to knowledge of God. In fact, Jesus is the only way to understand and approach our heavenly father. The error of thinking we "know Jehovah" because we know his name was the same mistake addressed by God in his answer to Moses basic question,
(Exodus 3:13) 13 Nevertheless, Moses said to the [true] God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of YOUR forefathers has sent me to YOU,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?”
Those Israelites knew God's name - but they did not know him. However, soon they would through the action he was about to perform in their behalf.
(Exodus 3:7-8) . . .I have heard their outcry as a result of those who drive them to work; because I well know the pains they suffer. 8 And I am proceeding to go down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a land good and spacious, to a land flowing with milk and honey. . .
They same is true for us today. God hears our outcry. Through Jesus he is about to act in our behalf so that we come to know him by what he causes to become.
Do you now see the importance of knowing Jesus first?
*** cl p. 3 Prologue ***
So God’s qualities and ways, as revealed in the Bible, are a vital field of study. Pondering the way Jehovah manifests each of his qualities, seeing how Jesus Christ perfectly reflected them, and understanding how we too may cultivate them will draw us closer to God.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-08 08:39:29

  You've just given me the basis for an excellent comment. Thanks.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-08 11:07:42

  I really enjoyed your comment!

Comment by miken on 2014-01-08 10:52:44

With regard to the pronunciation of God's name the Divine Name brochure has this to say on pages 6 and 7
"The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God’s name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants.
While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation “Ltd.” represents “Limited” and “bldg.” represents “building”).
Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word ’Adho·nai′ (“Sovereign Lord”). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God’s name was eventually forgotten.
In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at that time was preserved.
When it came to God’s name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ’Adho·nai′. From this came the spelling Iehouah, and, eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God’s name from the Hebrew original
Which Pronunciation Will You Use?
Where, though, did pronunciations like Yahweh come from? These are forms that have been suggested by modern scholars trying to deduce the original pronunciation of God’s name. Some—though not all—feel that the Israelites before the time of Jesus probably pronounced God’s name Yahweh. But no one can be sure. Perhaps they pronounced it that way, perhaps not.
"Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible"
We know that Jehovah is a man "invented" name and historically how it came about.
From page 8 of the brochure:-
"Some—though not all—feel that the Israelites before the time of Jesus probably pronounced God’s name Yahweh. But no one can be sure. Perhaps they pronounced it that way, perhaps not".
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"
"Nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced".So we use an invented name because it has "a currency and familiarity". Further more we know from our own history that Rutherford taking Jehovah out of its context applying to Israel, abitaril y applied it to those continuing to follow his mixture of bible and his own theology to differentiate them from those who left during the 1918/19 and 1925 splits. And we go further, condeming Christendom for not using the name Jehovah and as one of the indicators of their being false.
Surely we would be wiser and more correct to follow Jesus example of addressing God as our "Father" ( 2 Cor 1:3) rather than Jehovah.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-08 11:18:30

I made a comment on this site about the watchtower last Sunday saying how I need and to praise Jehovah more . That being said …Song 119 bothers me . The entire song is not in anyway praising Jehovah.
The lyrics are : “We live in a world that is wayward and lost;The way of our God is not known.We need sure direction to safeguard our steps;We cannot succeed on our own.Our meetings refresh us and brighten our hope;They help us build faith in our God.They move us with words that incite to fine deeds,They give us the strength to go on.We’ll never forsake what Jehovah commands;His will is what we want to do.Our meetings instruct us in ways that are right;Our love for the truth they renew.2. Jehovah is keenly aware of our needs;His counsel by us should be heard.To buy out the time for occasions to meetShows wisdom and trust in his Word.By wholesome instruction from God-fearing men,We learn how our faith can be shown.With loving support from our fam’ly of faith,We know that we’re never alone.So as we look forward to much better times,We’ll meet with the ones whom we love.And here at these meetings we’ll learn how to liveWith wisdom that comes from above.”
This is a far cry from Psalms 150. Where are we praising Jehovah in this song ? Isn’t that the reason why we are singing in the first place?

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-01-08 14:41:20

My only comment during the BS was on paragraph 8 where it says, "In response Jehovah revealed a thrilling aspect of his personality, something that is related to the meaning of his name. He said to Moses: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14)
Now I am really feeling dumbed down. It's as if we are being retaught even more childishly the elementary things of grammer school. For a fact we should already know that Hebrew has only two verb tenses, "past perfect" (action begun and completed) and "past/present imperfect" (action begun but incomplete). Moses needed to give his people something to put faith in which is why Jehovah gave him the unique, incomplete "past imperfect" rendering of His name (for the first and last time I believe), as the footnote states quite clearly in the NWT:
"Heb., ה ר ה (’Eh·yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh·yeh′)"
As it further clarifies: "Here ’Eh·yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha·wah′ appears in the divine name."
Simply put, Jehovah changed His name to strengthen his people, not to amaze them or us. If we understood Hebrew thinking better, we wouldn't need to be dumbed down or "thrilled" by this as though some new theological discovery has been given by the spirit through our present GB.
Names in Hebrew culture were dynamic and carried meaning into the person having them......which is far more meaningful than names in our culture. To us, names are just labels, whereas in Hebrew culture, a name was "to be chosen rather than abundant riches." (Proverbs 22:1)
sw

Comment by Jude on 2014-01-08 15:19:23

The truth is I have always understood the divine name as being more than just about Jehovah himself becoming what he wants to become. I always understood it as also being about him being able to cause other things to become. I was always a bit puzzled about why the focus of the meaning of his name seemed to be solely on him becoming what he wants to become and very little attention being given to the rather obvious fact that "He causes to become" also perfectly matches his ability to cause his will to occur and to create whatever he wants to create. His name is almost synonymous with the word Creator. I'm really puzzled as to why it took them so long to realize something so obvious.

• Reply by Jude on 2014-01-08 15:34:02

  In fact, I believe the creation account at Genesis 1 actually poetically reveals and describes God's name before it is first introduced at Genesis 2:4. To illustrate what I mean:
  "And God proceeded to say: “LET light COME TO BE.” Then there CAME TO BE light." - Genesis 1:3
  "And God went on to say: “LET an expanse COME TO BE . . . And it CAME TO BE so." - Genesis 1:6,7
  Genesis chapter 1 has a series of verses where God says "Let . . . come to be" followed by "and it came to be so".
  This repetition subconsciously/subliminally tells the reader that God is one who causes things to become because whenever he says let this happen, it happens. It teaches the reader God's name through the creation account! Then chapter 2 verse 4 says:
  "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that [He that causes to become] Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
  Do you see how chapter one poetically describes the name and sets the reader's mind ready for its introduction in chapter 2 verse 4?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-09 08:41:36

  Jude
  I doubt that it's taken a long time to realize it. I think the answer to the puzzle lies in what motivation there might be to hang on to a very specific, but unsubstantiated, definition.
  Since Rutherford made the move of labeling us with the Hebrew Divine name, we have had a lot invested in being the custodians of it. As such it was important for us to demonstrate that we knew exactly what it meant. Not only that, but as usual we had to maintain a difference between us and the rest of Christendom. If they allowed for the meaning to be more general or uncertain, then we had to boldly state that we had the certainty that they lacked.
  What has changed?
  This is going to sound slightly crass, but I don't know how else to put it. Using "Jehovah" as a "brand name" is becoming less important to us. We are in corporate transition from wearing that as an identity to our new identity which is "JW.org". The timing is perfect to loosen up on the meaning of the Divine name, while at the same time using the update as a corporate drill in keeping up to date via electronic versions of literature via the website. We are being taught to be responsive to the website and dependent upon it.
  Apollos

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-09 11:58:56

    Apollos - very good and accurate observation IMO

Comment by Jude on 2014-01-08 15:37:22

So the meaning of the name is almost synonymous with the title Creator. But it goes beyond Creator because it involves not only the creation of things but also the creation of events (fulfilling his will).

Comment by come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-08 16:03:57

We have never been ones to admit too much Bible scholarship, but Moses was a compiler, not a writer, of pre-flood events. There were at least two creation accounts, the second beginning at Gen. 2:4, where we first find "Jehovah" as the divine name.
The earlier account came from a source where God and verbs had only two time senses: complete and not-yet-complete. Thus the first account highlights this Godly power to become or cause-to-become.
Further, in a scientific sense, light with its energy and water in its liquid state are two requirements to sustain life. Day 1 and Day 2 explain how God "caused those to become."
The name Jehovah only comes into view when he is done:
(Genesis 2:1-2) 2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.

Comment by D on 2014-01-09 13:45:20

Maybe I'm missing what others are seeing, or perhaps I'm not understanding the issues that others are having, but isn't a positive that the wording was changed to something less than definitive? Should it always have read "understood to mean" rather than "literally means"? Yes, probably so.
I would suggest that some making comments here are doing the same as the GB has done. For example:
"Surely we would be wiser and more correct to follow Jesus example of addressing God as our “Father” ( 2 Cor 1:3) rather than Jehovah."
I think there is plenty of scriptural support that makes the statement above more than plausible, but if it were me I would temper it by using "we might" in place of "surely we would".
My point is we need to use the same caution in expressing our beliefs so that we don't end up become guilty of the same thing we are chiding others for.
For example, when I commented on a scripture last night I said "this means to me" before sharing my thought so that nobody would be offended. Maybe I'm too sensitive to people making definitive statements, but I do think all of us would have much fewer objections if people were softer in how they expressed their version of truth. And to be clear, I think that there is one truth, and I'm encouraged to see people in earnest search of it.

• Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-01-09 15:51:33

  Oh I think you hit the nail on the head, D. We should look more closely at "definitive" because this reflects the attitude our religion has been built upon. If Rutherford was right about anything, "Religion IS a snare." And because we allowed ourselves to be ensnared, we now have opinions so definitive that we built an entire religion upon exposing flaws in others that we cannot see in ourselves. So really then what defines our attitude better than our attempt to extract the straw from all other religious eyes before seeing the rafter in our own?

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-09 17:14:36

I agree with your comments SW1 and D . However I personally don't believe that any of the comments on have been negative. This whole site is full of scriptural opinions. So are the publications from the WTBS. Unlike the WTBS however, I don't think anyone is demanding that anyone put faith in them. I agree balance and modesty should prevail at the end of the day. Changing the word is neither positive or negative IMO. It's just a change.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-09 17:23:18

  For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: 2 a time for birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted; 3 a time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break down and a time to build; 4 a time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to wail and a time to skip about; 5 a time to throw stones away and a time to bring stones together; a time to embrace and a time to keep away from embracing; 6 a time to seek and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 a time to rip apart and a time to sew together; a time to keep quiet and a time to speak; 8 a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.
  A time to express an opinion and a time to state a fact; a time to stand firm and a time to bend; a time to speculate and a time to dictate; a time to be humble, and, okay, it's always time to be humble.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-09 18:12:36

    Nice Meleti :) point taken

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-01-10 02:00:30

    Yes! yes! yes! "And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness and to be modest in walking with your God?" (Micah 6:8 .... the amen to all of my rants!)

Comment by Kristie on 2014-10-03 04:17:20

MIL GRACIAS POR PONER ESTOS Himnos Y PODER ACCEDER,
A ELLOS, DIOS LOS BENDIGA Y LES DE MUCHA FORTALEZA PARA SEGUIR
EN SUS CAMINOS.
Importa quee religion debes seguir?, Jesus cuando vikno a la tierra, vino a unir o a separar?.
El Hombre le dara solucion a los problemas que tenemos?.
Quien gobierna veredaderamente este mundo?
Hasta cuando?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-03 10:14:21

  Gracias, Kristie. Es nuestra intención en el nuevo año poner un sitio web en español equivalente a Beroean Pickets para compartir con nuestros hermanos de habla hispana, las verdades biblicás que hemos descubierto juntos aquí.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-10-03 11:31:46

  Bienvenido y gracias por tu bendiciones! Que'l Padre te bendiga tambien.
  Es claro que ningun hombre puede darnos soluciones a nuestras problemas, solamente Cristo. Por eso, es EL que seguimos!