142 total posts
(Page 1 of 5)
I figure it's one of two things
Either he only cares now because it affects his own son, or talking with his son led to a genuine change of heart on the issue. I'd like to think it was the latter.
**** Cheney was very conflicted on this subject too. He has a gay daughter and it was very painful for him to support Bush's anti-gay marriage stance, but as VP he felt he had to stand by his president. It was the only time I ever felt any sympathy for him.
And if someone's daughter
decides she wants to be a prostitute, does that then mean someone who was opposed to prostitution on moral grounds should decide it's time to change his tune on it? No. He should resign immediately, since he was elected to represent those who have differing views from what he now professes. If he's got any honesty left, I await to read of his resignation.
I'd not be that hasty
and start asking him to resign. I doubt his election platform was based on a single issue. Sometimes it's better to keep and use someone for their good qualities rather than dismiss them for what one finds to be undesirable. Personally, I consider this media fed "gay hysteria" to be something better to ignore than to keep at the table. Just my opinion.
My brother- also a Jehovah's Witness-
has two dictionaries he uses. One is recent and the other is a few decades old. He found that "homosexual" is in both, but "homophobia" is in the newer one only. It's defined as 'an unreasoning fear of homosexuals'.
Not a bad view IMO (and my brother's). The existence of gays in the world is no more troubling to me or to Jehovah than the existence of straight adulterers or alcoholics or thieves, and some of those are of immediate danger to me. But the situations mentioned illustrate the problem faced by Christians who would get involved in mens' governments. John 17:11-17
Sort of like having two bibles
The real one and the WT one.
NWT itself is the Citation
or pick another.
Hah, even the great "I AM" became "I still need to be proved" and then in NT to "I used to be".
That Jehovah really gets around, he even changes other names to his in the NWT version of the NT.
I will only mention the "comma" discussion we had about Jesus on the cross when he spoke to the repentant thief.
I guess the worse is the denial that Jesus was in the flesh, suffered in the flesh, died in the flesh, and was resurrected in the flesh.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his
glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full
of grace and truth.
1 John 4:2
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ
as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is
the deceiver and the antichrist.
Let's stick with the three actual Bible- not James D- quotes.
John 1:14, NIV "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
1 John 4:2, ibid. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"
2 John 1:7, ibid. "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."
All three agree with the KJV that Jesus came in the flesh- as a human- therefore he must have "suffered in the flesh, died in the flesh." We believe that. There are religions (yours included?) that claim he also had 'another nature' or some such. Not scriptural; we don't believe it.
Then you write, "and was resurrected in the flesh." A common belief, but not ours; not scriptural. Otherwise his associates would have recognized him when they saw him. John 20:13 ff.; Luke 24:13 ff. He didn't go to heaven in his physical body. 1 Cor 15:13,22,35 ff. The bottom line: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit ... I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Or pick another. From the NIV translation committee, via the Watchtower of 7/15/79 p. 27.
"Why did the recently published "New International Version" (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it;that is how many have bought it to date;and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh ... It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."
JW comment: "Palmer cites "King James tradition" as well as mercenary considerations to rationalize removing God's name from His own book. However, it is of interest that even the "King James Version" itself puts such reasoning to rout when saying of God's opposers: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Ps. 83:16-18."
James, do you want to end up like Pharaoh? "But Pharaoh said: "Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice?" "And the waters kept coming back. Finally they covered the war chariots and the cavalrymen belonging to all of Pharaoh's military forces and who had gone into the sea after them. Not so much as one among them was let remain."
I'll reply more fully later, but...
...most of what you espouse is destroyed by I Corinthians chapter 15 which plainly teaches the perishable becomes imperishable and the corruptible becomes incorruptible. Same book in chapter 10 explains that just as Abraham knew God by one name, and Moses by another, yet even with Moses it was the one we call Christ who lead them in the wilderness. Christ showed Thomas he was in the flesh, even to allowing Thomas to touch the places of his wounds, following the resurrection. During the Transfiguration where also Moses and Elijah (who was taken to heaven in the body, as was Enoch) Christ who you acknowledge was in the body at that time, also appeared the same as those two other persons who were there with him. Even Moses covered his face after conversing with God so the Hebrews could not see the glory that would be afterwards, yet he was still in the body.
As for Translators, there were much better ones, more educated for the KJV than ever appeared for the Watch Tower revision.
PS - I agree with you on one item
The translators should have used the exact name/s for God as they appeared in the original manuscripts instead of caving to pressure (Jewish?) and substituting Lord vs LORD for distinctions between Adonai and Yehuvah (Jehovah, Yahweh, or whatever it would sound like with all the vowels included). The name is very similar to Jehu combined with Yah.
"The translators should have used"
Yes, and you could, by changing Bibles. But you don't, with knowledge of the truth of the matter.
NIV translators erudite enough for you? Not enough for Jehovah ("Jehovah the God of YOUR foretathers, the god of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation") nor for Jesus ("And I have made your name known to them and will make it known". How? He's 'died and gone to heaven'.)
As to the two sites you linked to: It's common for such to say, 'and JWs are forbidden to use any other Bible!!!' Didja notice? Didja notice what I use?
Don't bother to post to me about religion until (1) you read the Book before posting and (2) read one that's accurately translated at Isa 42:8. (Your first sentence in the other post agrees with my beliefs and contradicts yours; there are five errors in the rest.)
You seem to be under the impression
I am exclusive to use of the KJV. No, I prefer the RVS personally and certainly not the NIV. I use the KJV more for online discussion because so many fundamentalist seem wedded to that version. Sometimes I used the Duoay when I know the person is Catholic. I won't use the NWT because the provenance of it's translators abilities is almost non existent. As for YHWH, I know that LORD is the substitute in the KJV and just translate over to YHWH in my mind when I read it.
The practice of not using God's name verbally among the Jews began during the Babylonian captivity. They were derided as "yahoos" in a derisive tone of voice, so they decided to avoid having God's name used in vain by the heathens there, they'd substitute a different word, which for them I believe was the Adonai. Now some of them take it to an extreme where they won't even print God but G-d for some similar reason, probably because the word God is used improperly by so many in expletives.
I don't agree with their approach, God's powerful enough if He has a problem with heathens and their improper usage of his name, if He chooses, He can deal with it. I don't believe God's people are responsible for those who misuse God's name.
We don't have to be concerned much about how God wanted to be called in the OT today, but rather the term Jesus used, which was "Our Father" denoting a closer relationship to be established for believers in this age.
In the OT there are also various combinations with YHWH creating compound names, supposedly describing some characteristic of God, or so some believe. I do remember at the beginning God was Elohim which was a plural form of "E L".
There's also a glaring disconnect in the JW belief where they expect to remain here on Earth as an Eden restored, even though Jesus spoke of "Paradise" as being elsewhere, not here. Yet at the same time they want to deny the corruptible flesh becoming incorruptible. Even Job in the OT said in the last day he'd come up from his grave and with his own eyes see his Redeemer.
Job chapter 19
25"As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
26"Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;
27Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!
You seem to have people going away to only be a spirit and then also have people living here on a glorified earth all while denying the resurrection of Christ flesh and the coming resurrection of His chosen, in the flesh. "Then we shall be changed in the twinking of an eye" says Paul.
We've been over all this before, haven't we?
You might like the ASV
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 42:6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 42:7 to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.
Isa 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.
Isa 42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.
Compare to NT passages, still using the ASV
Colossians chapter 1
12giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;
13who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; 14in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:
15who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
John chapter one
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
Hebrews chapter 1
1God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, 2hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his'son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; 3who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?
6And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, And his ministers a flame a fire:
8but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:
11They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail.
13But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?
14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
Revelation chapter 22
12Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
14Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.
Don't worry over much about "Jehovah" because it's "Jesus" you will have to give answer to, since he created it all.
It's nice to "pick and choose"
and then tell others that they've chosen the wrong one.
I don't even know how that relates to anything above, but you might pull out your bible, any version of the bible, and start reading it, and learning. There's no picking and choosing, especially not since dpruner and I accept the same base scriptures, it's the translations accepted which we differ on, and how those translations might mislead in understanding what was originally taught.
RE: There's no picking and choosing,
So if they change their mind on anything
that some supporter considered in voting for them, they should resign?
And if a predominant black district
elects someone who changes his mind afterwards and says the Civil Rights Act should be nullified, that would be OK with you?
What sort of justification for his change is valid?
My son is gay so now I support gay rights.
My daughter prostitutes herself so I now support legalized prostitution
My wife cheats on me so I now will become her pimp
My mother drives drunk so I will support repeal of laws against drunk driving
My father is a bigamist so I now support polygamy.
Where does it end?!
RE: And if a predominant black district
White people wouldn't change positions?
James, I was asking re your statement
He should resign immediately, since he was elected to represent those who have differing views from what he now professes.
So if they change their mind on a political point, any political point that they campaigned on, they should resign?
He didn't change all his positions just one.
Are you saying any politician that makes a campaign speech about a talking point then changes his mind after elected should resign immediately?
I wonder how many special elections or appointments that would bring about every year. Only a fanatic or idealogue never changes his mind.
Some positions are more important than others
For instance I may not care what his position would be concerning pull tabs on metal cans or if they should or not be used also on food cans instead of just drinks. The ones that are very hot button issues, those matter most to voters in today's world and hopefully he will realize that and in spite of doing the wrong thing recently, he'll correct it somewhat by doing the right thing and resigning.
So how does he know how many of his
supporters want him to resign?
I understand the idea, it's not as bad as deliberately campaigning on a lie, but many would consider it close.
I wouldn't expect him to resign on one issue, unless there was real evidence a majority of his supporters felt he should. Then it becomes up to him to decide what he should do. The voters may not like his change in position, that's why we have elections fairly often although senators have to longest time between elections. But we don't just elect a parrot to repeat what we say, we elect someone hoping they'll do what is best and will recognize it. When we believe they fail, we replace them next election.
Maybe he'll figure it out
during his recall election.
that's a possible avenue
however, I don't know that all states have such.
Given the expense of such, I suspect most states that do require a fairly high level expressed desire for a recall to justify such. Not unreasonable, if you can't get say 20% of the registered voters to sign a petition, can you defeat him in an election? Of course, less than 50% of registered voters will vote anyway. That means 20% of registered voters would be 40% of those voting.
So 20% of registered voters may be a high standard. Maybe 10%? Of course 40% isn't enough to replace the official anyway.
Wikipedia says there was at least 150 recalls in 2011, none for federal officials, only state.
Another site records there has never been a recall of a member of congress although at least 18 states have some provision for it.
Seems some require a court ruling on specific infractions, not just dissatisifaction, for any recall election.
re more important than others
very hot button issues, those matter most to voters in today's world
Actually, it's a long shot that any one issue will make 50% of his voters in his election will vote to remove him.
Almost no one agrees completely on every issue with the politician they vote for. The norm IMO is voting for the lesser evil, or worse, just voting on the basis of conservative or liberal labels.
His constituency will decide that on the next election.
Well, people change, the society changes, moral changes.
It's not too long ago (some 150 years) that slavery was accepted. It's not too long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. It's no too long ago that smoking in public places was accepted (or is it still?).
It's not too long in the future that gay marriage will be accepted except by a small minority of fervent Christians (and a lot of their Muslim fellows, but even together they won't have a majority in the USA).
Then you won't mind when we change it back!! Glad we can count on you.
What do you want to change back?
Gay marriage? Prohibition of smoking in public places? Women voting? Abolition of slavery?
Let's reintroduce the burning of witches also.
I just heard something about 'crisis in the Republican Party" on the Dutch TV. These surely are 5 issues to revitalize the GOP and win the 2016 elections.
you said change was good
out with the old, in with the new, which then becomes old, and then in with the new that is just like the older old. Life goes on. Meanwhile, so long as it keeps changing, you can be happy.
Back to Speakeasy Forum
(Page 1 of 5)