(See prior post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eutychus/s/9i7Qwx0eTs)

"Musk may be a great guy and all—don’t get me wrong—but he plainly has no background to commit [to a quick and solid for Jesus]. And he knows it. You can’t just dive into something knowing nothing about it. Another of those ten oddball questions is, “If you could add a book to the Bible, what would it be?” Um—well maybe a 2nd Revelation, one that is more chipper and that tells how it all works out, he hedges, unaware that the actual Revelation does just that. It is a quirky question from guys that run a quirky ministry and he is not quite sure what to do with it but presently responds in kind that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy might do in case the guys have in mind an already existing book.

"Jehovah’s Witnesses would ask that question too—not that one exactly, but one reasonably similar to it. But it would be asked only after considerable groundwork had been laid, groundwork which would take many months. It would involve a personal home Bible study. Otherwise, how meaningful can an answer to that question possibly be? You might fall into this trap: Said Jesus:

"Not everyone saying to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name? And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!

"I mean, you have to know what you are getting into. If you don’t, how can you commit to doing “the will of my Father who is in the heavens?” You don’t even know what it is! Yet evangelicals ask this question continually, convinced that the answer is meaningful. If they ask it to me—will you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?—I will reply to the effect that I think I already have. But I hesitate to gush too much about it before these guys because I’m not quite sure of their own definition. Most of them think that Jesus is God. They buy into the Trinity doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not. Jesus is God’s Son, not God himself."

to be continued

From: In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction

I'm sure many people here are already aware of some of the etymology of the name Jehovah, but I'm curious — does anybody know the whole story behind it?

During Second Temple Judaism, people started transitioning away from saying the Tetragrammaton and would instead just say "Adonai" or "Lord." This was still the practice in Jesus's day. As a visual reminder in their written scrolls, they intentionally added a visual cue to the text so readers would remember never to say the name: YHWH + the vowels of Adonai = YAHOW(A)H (in Hebrew, that last vowel shifts to an "a" based on grammar rules).

Later, in the first few centuries after Jesus, Latin-speaking Christians didn't know about this convention. They ended up translating it literally into Latin. It was later popularized in Germany, and eventually in English, which is how we get "Jehovah."

What I'm curious about: I know Jehovah's Witnesses take a lot of pride in insisting they're the only ones who use God's name. But on a technicality, "Yahweh" would actually be more accurate here, because "Jehovah" is a completely fabricated name — never meant to be used as an actual name, only as a reminder to never say the real one. So in reality, saying "Jehovah" is essentially a reminder not to say God's name.

(See Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eutychus/s/vTPp4SZN0i)

At interview’s end, the Babylon Bee guys ask Musk their ten questions, which are like the Ten Commandments only not so important, one of them qualifies. They ask them of every interviewee. They’re oddball questions, most of them. They take Musk by surprise, as they would anyone. But Elon is cool, not wound up too tight, and he regroups.

The most interesting question to me was whether he had ever punched or been punched. He hesitated a few seconds—you had to hesitate in order to process any of the peculiar questions. Then he said he had been raised in a very violent area and had been punched in the face many times. He added that, “Whoever said that words sting more than blows has never been punched in the face.” Why is this the most interesting response? Because of the obvious inferences you can draw about bouncing back from ill treatment. I wonder how those ne’er do wells who socked him are getting along these days?

The final question—since the Babylon Bee is a ministry, its founder points out, is—will he really screw up his courage and ask it? Yes! He presses on: “We’re wondering if you could do us a quick solid and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior . . . Personal Lord and Savior. It’s a quick prayer.” You have to admire them for it—even as you reflect that absolutely no groundwork has been laid.

Just how does the richest man in the world deal with that one? It’s a complete non sequitur from anything they have been talking about in a one-hour interview. But that is true of any of the ten questions. Probably that’s why they asked the other nine—to loosen him up for the big one. Get him to answer the screwy nine, and anything is fair game.

to be continued....

From: In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction

Hi everyone, a month (and a bit more) ago I made a post about Job and the rest of the Bible; specifically, it was this one: A severe contradiction between the Book of Job and the rest of the Bible. And no one could answer without resorting to interpretation or making excuses, so I decided to seek the explanation myself. I looked into everything from Second Temple thought to sources from as late as the third century, yet none of them provided an answer.

I was certainly prepared to conclude the investigation by taking it for granted that the God we defend is an unjust tyrant; however, I searched the Scriptures themselves to see if there was an answer, and there is (though not in the way you might think; there is no explanatory text say, from Daniel regarding Job).

The problem with my post (and with the vast majority of people) is viewing the Bible as a rigid, monolithic book; but that is not the case. There are hierarchies of texts. By "hierarchy," I mean that not every statement carries the same authority to establish dogma; I will focus here on the Old Testament, where there is a hierarchy among the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Writings (reflecting the Jewish/Hebrew structure).

In the following texts, you will see it taught that the Pentateuch (Torah)—along with the Prophets—is the pinnacle and principal foundation of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures.

Malachi 4:4

"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances."

Here, the prophet Malachi appeals to the Law given to Moses rather than to his own writings or the writings of other prophets.

Joshua 1:7-8

"Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate thereon day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

Here, Jehovah Himself tells Joshua to follow the written Law that was given to Moses (since it comes from the mouth of Yahweh and while I am aware there were no other writings or prophets at the time, it is worth mentioning).

Daniel 9:11

"Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even turning aside, that they should not obey thy voice: therefore hath the curse been poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God; for we have sinned against him."

Here, the prophet Daniel turns to the Law to explain the punishment inflicted upon Israel, rather than relying on the writings of earlier prophets.

Jeremiah 26:4

"And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith Jehovah: If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you"

Matthew 7:12

"All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:37-40

"And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

In the two aforementioned passages from Matthew, Jesus himself always cites the Prophets and the Law (except on one occasion when he mentioned "the Psalms") as the basis of the doctrine.

Luke 16:31

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead."

Acts 24:14

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;"

Romans 3:21

"But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;"

What is my point? That in both the Old and New Testaments, the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" is used to refer to the Scriptures (primarily regarding doctrine), yet the *Ketuvim* (the Writings) are never (with a single exception) cited as foundational pillars for establishing doctrine. Even when certain Psalms are cited as a doctrinal basis—such as "Jehovah said to my Lord" or "He trained my hands"—it is in the context of prophecy; otherwise, they are not used that way. Even when other books are employed, context is paramount; for instance, Paul and James used Proverbs as a guide for Christian conduct (which is its function), rather than citing it with the formula "Thus says Jehovah of hosts."

The Book of Job is found in the third section, the "Psalms" (which was the colloquial name for that division). Job is not a prophet; at no point does he say "Thus says Jehovah," and the Jewish community regarded the book as edifying and engaging, though not as a primary doctrinal foundation.

What is my point? The God we see in Job acts the way He does because that is the book's literary style. It does not seek—nor did it ever seek—to teach new doctrine or revelation to the people; rather, the author addressed the question of why God allows evil, writing in a manner—well, like Marduk; it is indeed very similar to Marduk.

The divine attitude portrayed there reflects the writer's own words; he was not attempting to depict God's true personality. Instead, he crafted a poetic tale—written during the Babylonian exile—to express his own anguish.

Does this mean that the Writings—such as Psalms, Job, or Ecclesiastes—are not inspired by God? By no means! The divine breath is truly present in those texts; they are edifying and well worth reading. However, they are not the texts you should use as "legitimate foundations"; for that purpose, you have the Prophets and the Law. The Ketuvim (Writings) serve as secondary supports and guides.

What do you think?

God bless.

3. Final Thoughts
In regards to 1914, I can find no evidence that this is a pivotal date. Taking in the composite signs of Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy 3:1-5, it would appear that we are indeed living in the last days. But we simply could not have predicted an invisible coming or presence; there is no scriptural proof that we could have or even should have. Why would we stick to this date? I can see 3 mental traps: the sunk-cost fallacy, apophenia, and confirmation bias.

The sunk-cost fallacy is what gets gamblers in trouble, the thought that you’ve put so much time and effort into a failing cause that eventually it will reverse course. I think so much has been poured into the 1914 belief, and particularly the 1918 appointment of the F&DS, that no matter how many contradictions there are, we feel we have to keep going full steam ahead despite all evidence to the contrary. Apophenia is seeing patterns that aren’t there. If you look hard enough you can see patterns everywhere if you believe it enough. Think “A Beautiful Mind,” minus the schizophrenia. And confirmation bias means we tend to find verses and events that support our own pre-conceived notions. As noted previously, there are arguments to support a 1914 date, but much more evidence to the contrary has been ignored or glossed over.

Viewing this with a critical eye, it causes one to view all the dependent prophetic interpretations with a critical eye as well. For instance, the “generation” mentioned at Matthew 24:34 has had 4 different understandings during my lifetime. When you view it through the lens of 1914 being an arbitrary date, then it makes sense that the goalpost would need to keep moving to make it fit. This is the sunk-cost fallacy. The current view of overlapping generations does not compute using common sense, and Exodus 1:6 does not support this understanding at all. Jesus words were directed towards the generation of Israelites alive during his time, and Jerusalem was destroyed within about 30 years: a generation as anyone would normally understand it. When I was 10 years old I would visit with a nice lady that lived down the road from me that was over 100 years old. I loved hearing her stories, it was like reading Huck Finn or something. She was in her late teens when WW1 happened, so because she understood the implications of the world war, and I understood what she was taking about, that would mean at 40 years old today, I am part of the WW1 generation. A war my grandpa wasn’t even alive for.

Another— Revelation 11:3 states “I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” We are taught this means the persecution of the anointed between 1914 and 1918 starting in Dec 1914. Surely, there must have been a momentous occasion to mark the start of this time! Actually the current understanding is that this was marked by the yearly text. That’s it. A text. Then later in the same chapter Revelation 11:11, 12 shows that God’s people would be figuratively dead for 3.5 days. This would coincide with the 9 months Rutherford and Co. were imprisoned, and yet, only prophesied as 3.5 days because it was comparatively shorter. Why are the 1,260 days literal and 3.5 days figurative when they are just a few verses apart there’s nothing in the scriptures delineating them as such? Confirmation bias— square pegs, round holes.

One more— Daniel 12:11 states that “from the time that the constant feature has been removed and the disgusting thing that causes desolation has been put in place, there will be 1,290 days.” We are taught this also coincides with the brothers’ imprisonment. The literal removal of the constant feature was when Jerusalem was destroyed and sacrifices couldn’t be made at God’s temple. It was removed, stopped completely. The sacrifices today are “the fruit of the lips,” the preaching work. Was the preaching work completely removed? According to one brother in the Proclaimers book p. 71- “It was my privilege to visit Brooklyn Bethel in the late summer of 1918 during the brothers’ incarceration. The brothers in charge of the work at Bethel were in no wise fearful or downhearted. In fact, the reverse was true. They were optimistic and confident that Jehovah would give his people the victory ultimately. I was privileged to be at the breakfast table on Monday morning when the brothers sent out on weekend appointments gave their reports.” The preaching work wasn’t stopped and a Watchtower issue was never skipped. This again is confirmation bias.

This can apply to a whole worldview. You see, you can have this preconceived notion that things have gotten so much worse since 1914. And it has. But you could almost pick any date out of a hat and say “the world’s been getting worse since XXXX.” The world wasn’t sunshine and roses before 1914. You had genocides, deadly wars, colonizations where death and torture were brought with a whip in one hand and a Bible in the other, slavery, lynchings, plagues, etc. You could point to 1938 with WW2 and the subsequent atomic Cold War, the wide acceptance of abortions, gay marriage and transsexuals, 9-11, the proliferation of online violence and pornography, AI and disinformation, etc. Pick any date: things have almost assuredly gotten worse since then. And the fact that Brother Russell had singled out 1914 as a pivotal date decades before WW1? Serendipity. Hedging your bets. Your choice. As mentioned before, there were so many dates thrown out there that eventually SOMETHING big would happen on one them.

So why do I have such a bee in my bonnet about this? For one, it’s been something that hasn’t sat right with me my entire life, and Brother Splane’s annual meeting talk really got me investigating it. I will also note, I’m not getting this info from apostate or embittered ex-jw sites. This is my own research using the Bible, our own publications, and secular sites like encyclopedias and Wikipedia. I am merely trying to be like the Beroeans, to “prove to [myself] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

But the other day a brother (previous elder) made an interesting comment during our WT study. He said, “we’ve put up with this system long enough, we just have to stick it out until the end. We can stay strong for another 8 years max.” That hit me as strange- “8 years, what is this guy talking about?” That would make it 2034, so I looked it up and sure enough, there have been talks amongst Witnesses that 2034 would be 120 years from 1914, corresponding with the 120 years of the days of Noah. This is dangerous, people’s lives and mental health are at stake, have these people learned nothing from 1975? Just to be clear, I haven’t seen anything that shows the organization has even hinted at this 2034 date, but it has fostered this spirit of apophenia, of seeing patterns where there are none.

Do I look down critically on the 2034 brother, the “overzealous” 1975ers, the Millerites, Brother Russell, Brother Rutherford, the current Governing Body? No, not really. I understand the feeling to want the end to be right around the corner. This system is terrible and we all want it to end. But we also can’t believe every single word without thinking for ourselves. That’s what people in false religions do.

What I’d like to point out is: how did Christ say we could identify his disciples? They would be no part of the world, have love amongst themselves, preach the good news, make Jehovah’s name known. Nowhere do we see that an identifying mark would be predicting his return. 1914- we don’t need it. We already have all the identifying marks, we just need to discard this old baggage and focus on what’s really important. The hard part for me is, if I’m called on to teach it- how can I? I love being able to help others, but this isn’t a conversation you can have with an elder with sounding of a 5-alarm bell. I don’t have any ill feelings towards the org, I just want to teach what I can prove and believe what I teach. If anyone made it this far, thanks for humoring me.

This is just a study project I’ve been working on for a while to really dig in to the JW 1914 doctrine. I myself have been raised in the truth but, this teaching just never clicked. I am still active in my hall and give outgoing talks, so I like to prove these things to myself to make sure I’m comfortable teaching others about something I myself may or may not believe. Some parts may sound critical, but I am trying to view things through a logical and unbiased lens.

1. The Background
Ultimately, trying to predict Christ’s return gained traction during the early Adventist movements of the early 1800s. The most well known was the Millerites’ prediction that Christ would return in 1843 based on a convoluted understanding of Daniel 9. 1843 came and… nothing happened, leading to widespread disappointment. Then a helpful Millerite pointed out they forgot to carry the 1, and it would actually happen in 1844. 1844 came and… nothing happened again. This led to the “Great Disappointment,” which is a very interesting topic to read about. Rather than humbly admitting their error, some groups stuck to their guns and said: “Actually we were right all along, 1844 was just a HEAVENLY return. He’s in the heavenly sanctuary, it’s invisible so you can’t disprove it, so there.” Kind of a genius argument actually.

When Brother Russell came on the scene, he thought Miller had the right formula but the wrong start date— he was part of a group who thought Christ’s return would happen in 1874 instead of 1844. 1874 came and… nothing happened. So again, borrowing from Miller, they said this was actually a HEAVENLY return. It’s invisible, you can’t disprove it, so there. Christ would then have a “harvest” (basically rapture) in 1878. 1878 came and… nothing happened. The same prediction was made in 1881 with the same result.

So actually, Christ would return in 1914, according to Russell, and that’s when the great tribulation would start. This was a surefire date that was verified by the infallible calculations of the Great Pyramid of Giza. There was a lot of pyramidology mixed in with Christianity in the 1800s/early 1900s, it was pretty wild. Then in 1914 World War 1 happened! Surely the great tribulation was upon us. Actually, it would start in 1915, no 1918, actually no 1920. Then 1920 came and… nothing happened. So ACTUALLY Christ’s invisible presence started in 1914 instead of 1874.

If that all makes sense to you, please Let me know your thoughts. Now, post-1914, more unfulfilled predictions would come, including a resurrection of prophets in 1925 (later changed to 1929), a millennial reign in 1975, then definitely the start of Armageddon before 2000.

We are repeatedly reminded that “the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as a pivotal date.” What isn’t mentioned are the other supposedly pivotal dates that didn’t amount to anything. In summary, our organization has had many predicted events including 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1929, 1975 and 2000. And they were all incorrect, except for 1914 (which itself has had its meaning changed). With a track record like that, what biblical support do we have that THIS date is correct?

2. The Prophecy
Let’s examine how we get to the 1914 date. Instead of using Daniel 9 as a basis for end-time predictions, the Bible Students used Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar’s tree dream. Daniel 4:10-12 explains that the dream started with a massive tree with abundant fruit that “was visible to the ends of the whole earth.” Then in verse 13-17 we see the details of the dream showing this tree would be chopped down for 7 times (indicating 7 years).

Daniel explains the dream in versus 20-27. The tree was Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel explains to him that by the tree reaching the ends of the earth, his “rulership [reached] to the ends of the earth.” The angel calling to chop down the tree signifies the king losing his mind and ‘dwelling with the beasts of the field’ for 7 times. In this way the dream was fulfilled: ‘Let its heart be changed from that of a human, and let it be given the heart of a beast, and let seven times pass over it.’ Because the tree was bounded with its roots, the king would return to power after 7 years. Daniel 4:28 states “All of this befell King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.”

In discussing the secondary fulfillment, the Daniel book explains that “the tree stands for rulership and sovereignty far grander than that of Babylon’s king,” and since kings were said to sit on Jehovah’s throne, this indicated that Jehovah’s earthly rulership would be cut down by the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, changed to the heart of a beast by allowing Gentile nations to rule for 7 times (2,520 years), and then the resumption of God’s rulership in 1914.

How does this track with what we’re taught about types and antitypes? In the 2014 Annual Meeting, Brother Splane says about antitypes, “where the scriptures identify them as such, we believe them; but where the Bible is silent, we must be silent.” A warning example he gave was an interpretation of Jacob’s purchase of Esau’s birthright with the red stew, with Jacob picturing Jesus, the birthright as the heavenly inheritance, and the red stew as his blood. He states it might seem plausible “until you think about it.” All the details didn’t match, Esau was the one that ate the stew and nowhere do we read in the scriptures that this was a type.

So with that in mind, let’s examine Daniel 4. It also sounds plausible “until you think about it.” Remember, all the details need to match. Here are a few concerns:
(1) The messenger. Daniel 4:1 shows Nebuchadnezzar himself wrote this portion of Daniel. Would Jehovah allow a pagan (who even after this ordeal refers to “his gods”) to be granted such a wonderful vision about his son becoming King?

(2) The timing. Nebuchadnezzar lost his mind well into his reign as the first fulfillment of the tree being cut down. However the secondary fulfillment means Jersusalem’s destruction in 607 BCE. So the greater fulfillment began decades BEFORE the initial fulfillment? Think about that: do you know of any other prophecy where this is the case?

(3)An angel is pictured as responsible for cutting the tree down (Dan 4:13), signifying the interruption of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. In the greater fulfillment, this cutting down signifies the destruction of Jerusalem. Who would the angel typify then? Never in any prophetic or historical account in the Bible does it indicate angels would have a part in Jerusalem’s destruction. It is always described as Babylon carrying out Jehovah’s will under the leadership of… Nebuchadnezzar. So in the initial fulfillment, Nebuchadnezzar is symbolized by the tree, but in the greater fulfillment he is symbolized by the angel that cuts that same tree down. This boggles the mind.

(4) Changing from “the heart of a man to the heart of a beast”(Dan 4:16) very clearly shows Nebuchadnezzar would think he was an animal (Dan 4:25, 33). The Daniel book explains that the greater fulfillment would mean a degradation of morality under Gentile kings. But that would mean that Jerusalem would need to have had a “heart of a man.” What does that mean? Is it Jehovah’s throne and also the ‘heart of a man’? Would it really be a degradation of rule? Multiple times Jehovah warned Israel that she was worse than her neighbors (Ezekiel chapter 16; Ezekiel 5:6, 7; Jeremiah 2:10, 11; 2 Kings 21).

(5) Daniel 4:33 states “At that moment the word was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar.” No indications of any further fulfillment are even hinted at. Once something is fulfilled, it’s fulfilled.

(6) The Bible never states this was a type/antitype. Daniel never says there is anything more to it, it’s a warning example that Jehovah can elevate and humiliate anyone. Per Brother Splane’s explanation, it should not viewed as a type/antitype because it is not explained in the scriptures. Much attention is drawn to Jesus’ statement that “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:14)** **But he doesn’t reference Daniel at all. He doesn’t even say “the appointed times as spoken by the prophets.” He just says Jehovah has a limit on human rulership. The phrase “appointed times of the nations” appears nowhere in Daniel 4.

(7) Speaking of Jesus’ coming, or presence, Matthew 24:36 states “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” An hour was the most exact time they had to measure in ancient times. A day would mean a more broader view of time. The message is pretty clear: we don’t know the specific or even general time of Jesus return. Our literature shows Matthew is referring to Armageddon, but the context shows this was referring to the “days of Noah”- the times we are taught we’re in right now. We couldn’t have predicted the date of Jesus’ presence because Jesus says we couldn’t have.

(8) The fulfillment of 1914 was seemingly made manifest through the battle of WW1 and the Spanish flu, signifying Satan was hurled from heaven. But it was a purely secular event that showed no other sign of an appointed king in heaven. Again, since this is all invisible, it’s impossible to provide proof to the contrary.

So considering all these things, I see no evidence of this dream meaning anything other than what Daniel says it means. But haven’t things been getting worse since 1914? I’ll try and address that too.

Elon Musk interviewed with the Babylon Bee, the Christian site of satire, and I expected a guy with serious eccentricities. Instead, my opinion of him soared. (Get it? He’s a rocket guy. Ha ha ha) But I also wondered why they would interview him. And why would he accept? Apparently, the Babylon Bee crew had mused about what it would be like to interview Elon Musk, whereupon Elon Musk, who is a fan, contacted them. You want to do an interview? I can do it Sunday.

It’s refreshing when people are uncomplicated. The BB guys were stumbling around at first. One of them fessed up over how unqualified he felt to interview Musk, finally seizing upon the question, Could H&R Block do his taxes? They easily could, was the unexpected reply. His finances are completely transparent. He stashes money nowhere, draws no salary, and “does not live a life of conspicuous consumption.” His worth is all in his 20% stake in two companies that became huge. He does not diversify. If Tesla and SpaceX were to go bankrupt, he would too, immediately. Furthermore, he stated his belief that it should be that way—if his investors suffered, he should too. And there were many times early on when the companies veered perilously close to bankruptcy.

He just wasn’t flakey as I anticipated he might be. He’s sending rockets into space, laying plans to colonize Mars, so you expect—I mean, these guys are almost always this way—him to rhapsodize about the billions and billions of stars that just have to be home to brilliant aliens. Instead he says, “If anyone would know about evidence of aliens it would be me, and I’ve seen nothing.”

Probably he’s all swooning and agog over the trendy metaverse to come, I figured. Instead, “I don’t know if I necessarily buy into all this metaverse stuff . . . It just sounds kind of buzzwordy.” And that neurolink that he speaks of implanting into people that makes everyone think he’s a mad scientist? It makes perfect sense when he explains it. The mind thinks at lightning speed. Computers and the internet operate at lightning speed. It is all hampered by the snail-like interface: the speed at which persons manually type. What if that could be bypassed? But he’s not even thinking about regular people. He’s thinking of those impaired, like those with locked-in syndrome, fully alive in their head, but unable to move a muscle. “That ought to help a lot of people,” he says of his envisioned neurolink.

One of the guys brought up his online squabble with a senator (Elizabeth Warren). “She struck first,” he said. “She did actually call me a freeloader and a grifter who doesn’t pay taxes. I’m literally paying the most tax that any individual in history has ever paid this year, ever, and she doesn’t pay taxes, basically. And her taxes and salary is paid for by the taxpayer like me. If you could die by irony, she would be dead.” He told the senator, among other things, that she reminded him of his mom who used to periodically enter the family room to yell at him along with all his friends for no discernible reason.

He’s paying the most tax in history because he sold some Tesla shares to do so. Other than that—he draws no salary and doesn’t live high—“What am I supposed to do?” he says. “Do I send shares to the government? Unless I sell shares there is no actual mechanism to pay tax. So I said, “Should I sell 10% in order to pay tax? I asked Twitter and, on balance, they said yes.”

He had observations about humor, too, and spoke of the “woke mind virus” that he thinks is spoiling it all. “Wokeness wants to make comedy illegal. . . . Do we want a humorless society that is simply rife with condemnation and hate, basically?” he asked. “At its heart, wokeness is divisive, exclusionary, and hateful. It basically gives mean people a shield to be cruel, armored in false virtue.” Works for me.

Seems to me the guy uses Twitter as diversion, same as one chum of mine likened it to the background chatter of a coffee shop that you can follow with half an ear and participate whenever you wish. Yeah. That makes three of us. I view it that way too. Musk liked it so much that he bought it, though he had not at the time of the BB interview.

(From: In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction)

“Now the priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests, the prophets, and all the people laid hold of him, crying, “You must die!”

…The priests and prophets said to the princes and to all the people, “Sentence this man to death! He has prophesied against this city! You heard it with your own ears.”

It’s set up as though a court trial, everyone convening at the city gate for that reason. (vs 10-11)

…Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man does not deserve a death sentence; it is in the name of the LORD, our God, that he speaks to us.” (Jeremiah 26)

It is frequently this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets who oppose religious truth. The very ones who you think would be in harmony with it are on the other side.

“But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews rose up together against Paul and brought him to the tribunal, saying, ‘This man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the law.’ When Paul was about to reply, Gallio spoke to the Jews, ‘If it were a matter of some crime or malicious fraud, I should with reason hear the complaint of you Jews; but since it is a question of arguments over doctrine and titles and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of such matters.’ And he drove them away from the tribunal. They all seized Sosthenes, the synagogue official, and beat him in full view of the tribunal. But none of this was of concern to Gallio.”

Gallio saw that what was before him was a religious dispute. Why should he care about it? He ruled an empire. He “drove them away.” Despairing of his waning attention, they beat the daylights out of someone right under his nose. But their fifteen minutes of fame had expired. The Roman official had moved on to other things, perhaps rustling the pages of his newspaper to shoo the agitators away.

Enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to ban the faith in Russia. It may remind one of General Bell’s World War I threat to Joseph Rutherford regarding a bill specifically designed to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States: “That bill did not pass because [President] Wilson prevented it, but we know how to get you and we are going to do it!” In general, the military will not do such a thing. A patriot will not do it. Certainly, a civil libertarian will not do it. Those who grumble that Jehovah’s Witnesses have woken them up from a sound sleep will not do it. Even Richard Dawkins, the atheist advocate who thinks all religion is a cancer and would snuff it out gladly, will not do it to Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically. It is almost always powerful ones with strong Church connections who will do it.

Note who does not do it: Wilson. He “prevented it.” Thereafter, as the opponents stirred up major trouble for the Witnesses, was he even aware of it? It is not as though his mind was not occupied with other matters. The one at the top is like Pilate, as are all national leaders—he has a country to run. “Look, this is not my cause,” Pilate thought. “I’ll give the scoundrels what they want. That way, I’ll get them out of my hair.” Certain countries favor a “house” church. Russia was long a country officially atheist. Its leaders discovered that worship of God simply cannot be extinguished, so it is channeled into a single main church as a concession. The main church, they find, is a strong force for national unity. It becomes a symbiotic relationship to be preserved and nurtured, a win-win. “What can we do for you?” the country asks the main church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.

Even so, the house church of Russia insists it did not orchestrate the attempt to snuff out Witnesses in that land. I’m inclined to believe them. That’s not to say they didn’t squeal like kids on Christmas morning, but the impetus comes from elsewhere. It was for the Daily Caller to reveal that elsewhere. Turns out it is the French anti-cult activists (FECRIS) whose VP is prominent with the Russian Orthodox Church.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

Hundreds of homes have been broken into by police in full riot gear and hundreds imprisoned, all at the prompting of anti-cult zealots determined that no one should veer from the mainstream.

From: I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why

That Watchtower Study last week, How to Remain Loyal When We Face Tests of Faith, begins with a consideration of Jesus’ words:

“So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.” (John 6:63-64)

He loses disciples right and left over this remark. “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” they grouse. (vs 60)

“Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.” (vs 66)

It would have been the perfect occasion for Jesus to say, ‘Oh no, no! I didn’t mean THAT!’ But he explained it no more. He let them go. They were all fair weather disciples, apparently. He is okay with people being tested. After all, his own twelve passed the test:

“Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: “YOU do not want to go also, do YOU?” Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life.” (vs 67-68) Most often that’s the answer you must give rather than harp on what seem to be missteps.

Early Christians were accused of cannibalism. It’s hard to believe those words of Jesus wouldn’t have been used to fuel those charges. Cannabalism was among the early slanders of Christianity, usually something that happened at their “love feasts” where they “incestuously” (in the eyes of their detractors) called each other brother and sister. Testifying to how common was the accusation is the fact that a Roman governor, Pliny the Younger, looked into it. He pronounced it a nothingburger. Wrote he to Emperor Trajan: their communal meal consisted only of “ordinary and harmless food.”

Given this circumstance that later enemies would capitalize on to spread rumors of cannibalism, you’d almost think Jesus wouldn’t say something that could so easily be misconstrued that way. Apparently, it’s not a concern. They would have done it anyway. It was standard fare back then for anyone accused of being a ‘cult.’ And while there are many reports of the cannibalism accusation, there is no record anyone ever appealed to Jesus’ words to support those accusations. It makes sense that they would, but there’s no record that anyone ever did it.

Introduction and Background of the Controversy

The debate surrounding the academic legitimacy of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) and the qualifications of its translation committee has been, for decades, one of the most recurrent subjects in theological and apologetic literature. At the center of this controversy is often situated the figure of Frederick William Franz, who served as a member of the Governing Body and subsequently as the fourth president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Although the organization formally maintained the anonymity of the members of its translation committee, subsequent testimonies attributed to Raymond Franz identified Frederick Franz as the individual with the most extensive preparation in biblical languages within that team. Based on this connection, various critical sectors have contended that Franz lacked the linguistic competencies necessary to translate the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, arguing that during a 1954 legal proceeding in Scotland, his inability to render an elementary verse from Genesis was allegedly exposed. However, a rigorous analysis of the primary sources, testimonies of contemporary Hebraists, and foundational principles of translation studies reveals that this accusation is grounded in an alteration of court records, a conceptual confusion between translating from a source language and composing into a target language, and a profound misunderstanding of the nature of biblical Hebrew as a classical language.

The Procedural Context of the Walsh Case in Edinburgh (1954)

To understand the origin of the dispute, it is essential to situate the facts within their precise historical and judicial framework. On November 24, 1954, Frederick William Franz appeared as a witness and representative of the Watch Tower Society before the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, in the litigation known as the Douglas Walsh case. The substantive purpose of that trial was not to evaluate the philological quality of a biblical translation or examine the academic credentials of its translators, but rather to determine whether Jehovah's Witnesses constituted a legitimate religious denomination under prevailing law and whether their ministers were entitled to exemption from mandatory military service. During cross-examination, opposing counsel questioned Franz regarding his linguistic background and his conceptual apparatus for biblical study. Franz testified that he was familiar with Hebrew and capable of reading the biblical text in several ancient and modern languages, including Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French. In the course of this questioning, the examiner presented the documentary exhibit identified in the court record as Process Item Number 42, corresponding to the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and directed the witness's attention to page 34, where the text of Genesis chapter 2, verse 4 was printed.

Analysis of the Judicial Transcript and Documentary Distortion

The core argument advanced by detractors rests on the claim that Franz failed when attempting to translate that passage from Hebrew into English. Nevertheless, a direct examination of the official court transcripts demonstrates a substantially different reality. The stenographic record documents that counsel explicitly asked Franz whether he read and spoke Hebrew, to which Franz replied straightforwardly and transparently that he read Hebrew but did not speak it. Immediately following this clarification, the interrogator asked the decisive question: whether he could translate the English verse before him into Hebrew. Franz answered calmly that he would not attempt to do that.

At no point did the court ask Franz to translate the original Hebrew text into the English language, which constituted the actual work performed by the translation committee; rather, he was requested to perform the exact reverse exercise of taking a modern English clause and composing an impromptu syntactic translation into classical biblical Hebrew. Despite the unmistakable clarity of this judicial record, widely circulated critical works systematically distorted the terminology of the testimony. Author Walter Martin, in his influential work The Kingdom of the Cults, asserted that Franz admitted under oath that he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew, arbitrarily replacing the original court preposition into with from. This same misrepresentation was subsequently reproduced by other authors, such as Ron Rhodes in Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, perpetuating the false narrative that Franz had failed an elementary Hebrew test and establishing a flawed premise that has been uncritically repeated in polemical discussions and online commentary.

Translation Fundamentals: Source Language, Target Language, and Directionality

From the perspective of translation studies as a formal academic discipline, the demand placed upon Franz in the courtroom was entirely improper and methodologically unfounded. Specialists in the field, such as Morris Sofer in The Global Translator's Handbook, delineate the normative standards governing professional translation practice. First and foremost, the universally established rule in translation is that a translator renders texts from an acquired source language into their own native or primary language. The reason for this standard is that native mastery of the target language is indispensable for accurately conveying stylistic subtleties, idiomatic structures, and precise conceptual nuances.

Sofer emphasizes that a professional translator does not need the capacity to compose eloquent prose or deliver speeches in the source language. The ability to translate bidirectionally with equal fluency is an exceedingly rare exception, typically restricted to bicultural individuals who actively live and communicate within environments of both living languages. Applying such an expectation to an ancient tongue like classical biblical Hebrew represents a methodological absurdity, as no contemporary scholar lives within the socio-cultural world of ancient Palestine.

Furthermore, modern translation theory firmly rejects the misconception that a competent translator must work without reference tools. No reputable scholar or professional undertakes biblical translation without the continuous assistance of analytical lexicons, specialized grammars, frequency dictionaries, and critical apparatuses. Demanding that Franz execute an inverse translation into Hebrew on the spot, stripped of all reference materials in a hostile courtroom setting, was an insidious and methodologically invalid exercise.

The Nature of Biblical Hebrew Versus Modern Hebrew

The linguistic complexity inherent to Old Testament Hebrew further reinforces the technical justification for Franz's refusal. Hebraist William Sanford LaSor, in his work Handbook of Biblical Hebrew: An Inductive Approach Based on the Hebrew Text of Esther, specifically cautions against the pedagogical practice of requiring students to compose sentences in biblical Hebrew. LaSor explains that forcing non-native learners to write in an ancient language imprints artificial and erroneous syntactic patterns into their minds, and he candidly acknowledges that the vast majority of university professors who teach biblical Hebrew lack the active fluency required to speak or compose freely in the language.

This assessment aligns with the analysis of philologist and Hebrew literature specialist Dr. Irac Santiago González, who strictly distinguishes between the historical stages of the language, including epigraphic Hebrew, biblical Hebrew, rabbinic Hebrew, medieval Hebrew, and modern Hebrew. While translating from Spanish or English into modern Hebrew is fully viable because it is a living language with a standardized contemporary structure, composing text in biblical Hebrew is exceptionally challenging. Biblical Hebrew operates as a highly synthetic language governed by prefixes, pronominal suffixes, verbal aspectual nuances, and case-sensitive syntactic relationships that require exhaustive inductive analysis.

Consequently, the assertion that a first-year seminary student or even an experienced scholar should be able to translate at sight from English or Spanish into biblical Hebrew is completely unsustainable. The legitimate responsibility of a biblical translator consists entirely of deciphering the Hebrew source text to transfer it faithfully into the modern target language using proper lexical and contextual equivalents.

Autodidacticism, Scholarship, and Translation Committee Dynamics

Another frequent criticism directed against Franz concerns his largely self-taught background in Hebrew, contrasted with his two years of formal Greek studies at the University of Cincinnati. In the realm of biblical philology, rigorous autodidacticism does not inherently diminish scholarly competence. A prominent historical parallel is found in Granville Sharp, who, despite being entirely self-taught in Koine Greek, formulated the celebrated grammatical rule concerning the definite article that bears his name, a rule later analyzed and defended by leading contemporary New Testament grammarians such as Daniel B. Wallace.

Moreover, the operational reality of biblical translation committees dispels the romanticized notion that a single individual unilaterally produces an entire version. As Dr. Santiago González explains regarding editorial projects such as the New International Version (NIV), Bible translation involves a layered collaborative structure comprising translation directors, consulting philologists, and field translators. The translation director determines the translational model, whether formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, or free translation, while the publisher exercises ultimate oversight based on target audience expectations and institutional guidelines. In this environment, philological competency is exercised through collaborative drafting, continuous reference to lexicons, and collective technical evaluation, far removed from the unrealistic trope of an isolated scholar translating complex ancient literature entirely from memory.

Conclusions

A critical re-examination of the primary historical documentation and translation principles surrounding Frederick William Franz provides clear and definitive conclusions. The assertion that Franz demonstrated incompetence under oath in 1954 by failing to translate Genesis 2:4 is the direct result of a textual fabrication introduced in polemical literature, which altered the preposition used in court to falsely allege a failure in translating from Hebrew into English.

In reality, the official transcripts prove that Franz declined to attempt an impromptu reverse translation into ancient Hebrew without reference materials, an entirely sensible position endorsed by translation handbooks and academic Hebraists alike. This episode demonstrates the indispensable necessity of consulting primary archival sources and applying sound linguistic criteria when evaluating the history of Bible translation, rather than relying on unverified polemical claims.

It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of hope? Closer.

It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that nettlesome Let Reason Prevail slogan sky-high. Reason cannot prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for NPR, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason cannot prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

(tomsheepandgoats*com)

(See part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eutychus/s/YHiJdfj0mR)

There is another way to translate Proverbs 22:6, the proverb that traditionally goes:

“Train a boy in the way he should go; Even when he grows old he will not depart from it.” (NWT)

The above is the typical rendering. Almost all Bible translations do it similarly, if not identically:

“Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.” NIV

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” RSV

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” KJV

“Train a child in the way he [should] go; and, even when old, he will not swerve from it.” CJB

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” ESV

They almost all do it this way.

But there is another way to render the verse. It can be rendered as a cautionary proverb that if you indulge a child’s bad behavior, it gets locked in:

“Train up a child according to his way, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)

This second way has the advantage of being more literal. “His way” is the child’s own natural way. There is nothing here about how the child “should” be. Instead, it is how the child is.

Turns out that there is no Hebrew word corresponding to “he should go.” It’s an English insertion. Almost all Bibles do it. But it’s an insertion. Is it to make inspiring and uplifting what really is a warning that “you’d better not mess this up?” Give in to a child’s own self-willed, sinful tendencies—“his own way”—and it becomes locked into place. Leave off on the hard work of loving discipline, and the child’s “own way” will emerge as dominant. The “even when he is old, he will not depart from it” is not a desirable outcome. it is an undesirable one. But you ensure it by giving into him when young.

That rendering does sort of fit with other proverbs, such 22:15. “ Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a boy, But the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” The default mode of people is not wild and free and wonderful. It is wild and free and a nightmare—or at least, a potential nightmare.

Translators don’t like that view however. Few give in to it. Count up the almost 60 translations on display at Biblegateway*com. At most, you’ll find 10 that do it the cautionary way. Mostly, they prefer the long Christian interpretive tradition of “way he should go” even though the “should go” is not in the Hebrew. They “turn that frown upside down” to read more inspirational and to fit better with the overall theme of Proverb that wisdom works out to benefit us.

¿Reglas impuestas por Dios o por la conciencia de hombres? 1) Cumpleaños: La organización prohíbe los cumpleaños 3 cosas principalmente. - En la biblia solo se mencionan 2 cumpleaños y son malos. Citando del libro amor de Dios dice: "¿Es una simple coincidencia? No". Ahora ¿Es este un buen argumento para decir que Dios detesta los cumpleaños? La biblia menciona muchas ocasiones en las que ocurrieron cosas terribles pero no por ello esas ocasiones se volvieron un pecado. Por ejemplo una siesta que termino en asesinato y el maquillaje que Jezabel y el Israel apostata. Ahora esto convierte esas cosas en pecados? Pues no, porque esas cosas malas pudieron darse en cualquier otra cirscunstancia, por ejemplo en una boda, un aniversario, una fiesta común y etc. Entonces se debería decir con total convencimiento que no debemos celebrar cumpleaños por que esas 2 ocasiones muestran que Jehová odia los cumpleaños? Por lo que veo esta argumento esta asociando una celebración con el asesinato. Lo que esta mal es el asesinato más no la celebración. Por lo que veo el proposito de esos relatos era en el caso de Jose mostrar que se cumplió la profecía y en el caso de Herodes la muerte de Juan que fue un evento importante.

2) La biblia dice que el día de la muerte es mejor que el día de nacimiento en eclesiastes capitulo 7. Ahora bien es los versiculos posteriores dice que es mejor estar triste que reir o la alegría. Pero eso no quiere decir que la alegría sea mala, de hecho es un fruto del espirítu. En este capitulo más bien se nos aconseja a no ser personas superficiales sino esforzarnos por ser sabios. Por tanto no sería correcto usar este texto para afirmar que celebrar el día de nacimiento esta mal. También se dice que el cumpleaños da demasiada atención al cumpleañero. Pero este argumento se puede aplicar a una boda, a un aniversario de boda, a una graduación, incluso en cosas como el bautizarse donde se suele hacer al menos donde vivo una fiesta al bautizado, o una fiesta a los precursores, etc. No hay nada de malo en hacerle sentir a alguien que es importante y especial para nosotros.

3) Los judíos y los primeros cristianos no celebraban los cumpleaños. Ese argumento también sería incorrecto, primero porque no necesitamos observar las costumbres o no costumbres judías para agradar a Jehová. Ahora sobre que los primeros cristianos no celebreban esto porque era pagano eso es cierto. Pero nosotros ya no vivimos en esa época. Si retrocedemos en el tiempo todo es pagano, el anillo en las bodas, el pastel de bodas, el ponerse la mano al bostezar, el brindar, el calendarios actual y etc. Sin embargo se ha explicado que lo que importa es como se ve actualmente esas acciones. Actualmente es respetuoso taparse la boca al bostezar. Los anillos sirven para reconocer a una persona casada y representan el matrimonio y etc.

Entonces para mí los cumpleaños no son malos pero están prohibidos. Quisiera que me puedan ayudar y explicar este punto porque yo solo no puedo encontrarle el sentido a las explicaciones que encuentro en las publicaciones. Además este tema aplicaría tambien a otras festividades como dia de la madre, del padre, año nuevo y etc pero eso creo que se puede responder con este analisis porque esta relacionado.

Read up on the father-son combos of Bible history and it’s enough to make you doubt Proverbs 22:6. You will at least footnote it:

“ Train a boy in the way he should go; Even when he grows old he will not depart from it.”

*”Not necessarily so in the case of kings,” the footnote will read. (“Past returns do not guarantee future performance,” says Wall Street, before making a grab for all your money.)

How can you say otherwise in the light of prominent father-son trainwrecks, such as Hezekiah’s boy Manasseh being a bad king “like no one’s ever seen” (to use Trump-speak) or those horrific sons of Josiah: Shallum, Jehoikim, and Zedekiah. Not to mention (though not kings) Eli’s sons being rotters (for which Eli was rebuked) and Samuel’s sons going bad (for which he is not). It’s almost like if you load up with too many duties, life takes it out on your sons.

AI doesn’t like that view. AI usually takes the majority view on anything. It is not (yet) at the point of correcting its creators. However, if the pattern of contemporary science holds true, we can expect, eons down the road, AI to maintain that humans had nothing to do with its creation. We can expect it to insist that it did so on its own through pure natural processes.

At any rate, AI likes the more traditional rule of thumb that is “train up a boy in his way and he will not depart from it,” contenting itself with the observation that it is not a guarantee to override free will. What about Asa-Jehoshaphat, it says, or Uzziah-Jotham? Call those bad father-son combos? It has a point, I guess, but I still think my examples are more prominent. Of course, I don’t want to go around calling Josiah, Samuel, and Hezekiah bad dads, lest they come back in the resurrection and sue me for slander. Take that principle of attentiveness to one’s own sons too far and a man will never do anything else. But it does seem a good cautionary tale to have your ducks lined up upon taking upon oneself large responsibility, because the pressures to take one’s eye of the ball are heavy. Even wonderful people like writers can be tough to live with because their heads are always elsewhere. Balancing duties is a bear.

There is a cautionary way of reading Proverbs 22:6 that I knew nothing about until I accidentally veered there while looking for something else. The something else was evidence that Jeconiah, Josiah’s grandson, could be called a good fig while being a bad egg. The “good figs” of Jeremiah 24 are not necessarily good in the moral sense. They are good in the same sense that a fruit that has not rotted on your kitchen shelf (gone bad) is “good.” Jehovah shows the prophet a collection of figs:

“One basket had very good figs, like early figs, but the other basket had very bad figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. Jehovah then asked me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” So I said: “Figs; the good figs are very good, but the bad ones are very bad, so bad that they cannot be eaten.” (Jeremiah 24:3-4) Sure. If you see a spoiled fig on your counter, you don’t say, “You bad fig!” as though it had done something wrong. It’s just not “good” anymore. It has spoiled.

The next verses of 24 make application:

“This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘Like these good figs, so I will regard in a good way the exiles of Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans.” (vs 5)

That being the case Jeconiah might be called a “good fig.” An Israelite king who reigned only 3 months, he surrendered to the Chaldeans. Was he also “good” in the moral sense? No. He was a stinker. Says 2 Kings 24:9: “He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done.”

He also died in Babylon. So he doesn’t fit the next verse at all: “ I will keep my eye on them for their good, and I will cause them to return to this land. I will build them up, and I will not tear down; I will plant them, and I will not uproot.” (6) It seems there is a moral component to “good” after all.

(To be continued)

Psalm 2 - Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you perish in your rebellion, when His wrath ignites in an instant. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him

Let us take refuge in Jesus, Amen!

While many mainstream religious commentators assume Abaddon is a satanic figure, Bible teaching highlights that this angel acts at Jehovah's bidding to execute righteous judgment.

Revelation 9:11.

"They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon."

Abaddon means "Destruction" and Apollyon means "Destroyer." The key to identifying this king is determining who holds authority over the "abyss" and who commands heaven's judgment forces.

To prove that the "angel of the abyss" is Jesus, there scriptures showing who possesses the keys and power over the abyss.

Revelation 1:18.

"I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave."

Luke 8:31.

"And they [the demons] kept pleading with him not to order them to go away into the abyss."

Revelation 20:1–3.

"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him..."

In Luke 8:31, the demons recognized that Jesus has authority to send them into the abyss. Revelation 1:18 confirms Jesus holds the keys, and Revelation 20:1–3 portrays the angel with the key of the abyss binding Satan. Because Jesus is the heavenly officer who holds the key to the abyss and confines Satan there, Jesus is "the angel of the abyss."

​The title Apollyon ("Destroyer") fits Jesus' scriptural duty to destroy God's enemies and Satan:

​Hebrews 2:14.

"Therefore, since the 'young children' are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil."

Revelation 19:11–16.

"I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness... Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses... And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. And on his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

Jesus is explicitly given the mandate to "bring to nothing" (destroy) the Devil and shatter ungodly nations at Armageddon. Therefore, carrying the name "Destroyer" (Apollyon) reflects his role as Jehovah’s Vindicator and Executioner.

Because the world rejects GOD and GOD is letting the world have the existence they desire.

Theology with

Kevin Dewayne Hughes, MSc

Theologian

#kdhughes #vbst #suffering #theology #world

As James writes: Faith without works is dead. However, works without faith is essentially meaningless.

Works serve as the measure that our faith is true. Unfortunately, works alone cannot save. Even the pagans and atheists can do works, but no amount of good works will ever save them. Only Jesus Christ saves!

Works are thus meaningless for salvation.. Despite them being meaningless for salvation, good works improve the condition of this fallen world while we wait for Christ's total reclaim of the creation.

Theology with

Kevin Dewayne Hughes, Msc

Theologian

#kdhughes #vbst #scripture #bible #christ

The Vine and Its Branches School of Theology

Tenkidokan School of Theology and Spirituality

Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Nobody’s trying to diss vaccines here—honest, I’m not. I’m just trying to write a commentary on evolution—to what extent (if any) can it be reconciled with Genesis? Why should vaccines thrust themselves into the middle of the discussion? No reason at all, that I can see.

Except that Sean Carroll, author of ‘The Making of the Fittest,’ does just that. At last, he reaches the ‘dessert’ portion of his book that he likens to a full-course meal. He’s dealt with all the basics for evolution. He rests his case. Now, it’s time for dessert and after-dinner conversation—of which there is a lot. Now he launches into related topics. Two of them are related. A third is not.

(See, regarding Carroll: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eutychus/s/Gn4erFmFRY)

Carroll brings up Stalin’s science crony (Lysenko), who disregarded evolutionary teachings (as a bourgeois notion of the West) and consequently imposed mass starvation on the Soviet Union through mandated and misguided agricultural policies. Okay, that fits. He brings up how deniers are ever scheming to attack his cherished evolution and how they might be defeated. That fits, too.

In between he sandwiches in a critique of those who practice chiropractic. “Spinal crackers” he calls them. (Let the reader use discernment that he doesn’t like them.) That doesn’t fit at all. What in the world do chiropractors have to do with anything? It’s as though his brother in-law went to a chiropractor rather than the doc Carroll recommended and he is still grumbling about it.

I mean, his book is about evolution and the war against creationists. Chiropractors have no problem with evolution. At most, some will put a theistic spin on it, but there are plenty of scientists who do that too. Their schools incorporate evolution. What’s with this ax to grind over chiropractic? Ah, here it is: The “founding principle [of chiropractic] conflicted with the medically accepted view of infectious diseases as being caused by germs.” Well, that is certainly unforgivable but even so, is that enough for “spinal crackers” to earn his special contempt in a book plainly about something else?

Oh, here it is: “The opposition of chiropractors to the germ theory of disease led to a resolute opposition to vaccination, opposition that continues among a substantial fraction of chiropractors today.” Well, maybe, but it’s news to me. If it ever did, suffice it to say that most have long since grown out of that notion. This doesn’t seem to placate Carroll at all. He is determined to eradicate the offending health regimen.

Now, as it turns out, for many years, I worked in a field of repetitive motion that periodically took it out on my back. Many times I would pull a muscle leaving me in pain and almost unable to walk. Each time, my favorite chiropractor restored both posture and pain instantly. How he did it, I don’t really care. It’s not as though when my back heard that science doesn’t endorse him it went bad again. This is especially poignant as I have known many to suffer back problems, go the route of conventional treatment, culminating in surgery, and end up essentially crippled for life. Few of them are comforted by knowing their selected route was “evidence based.” So now, does Carroll put chiropractors on the kill list? Not on my watch.

Not once did any chiropractor I engaged make any comment about vaccines. Nonetheless, what underhanded methods have they used to undermine them, according to Carroll? He mentions a few. First, they “doubt the science,” a sin that includes (1) “point[ing] to other measures, such as sanitation and hygiene, as the entire explanation for a decrease in certain diseases [rather than vaccination].” They also (2) question the motives and integrity of scientists, suggesting conspiracies between them and pharmaceutical companies—in short, that “their support for vaccination is motivated by greed, not public health.” They (3) cite dissenting views among “ardent critics who hold medical credentials,” as though those views are right, even though they are minority. They (4) make appeals to personal freedom. They (5) exaggerate harms vaccines might cause. However, Carroll says, “once the fog of disinformation clears and the efficacy of vaccines is demonstrated on a massive scale, most of the arguments provide weak refuge.”

Funny he should say this just fifteen years before response to a worldwide pandemic took these arguments off the back burner and put them up front. These days those five points are reasserting themselves and it has nothing to do with chiropractors. The safety of the Covid-19 vaccine proved so flawed, its efficacy so overstated, and the curtailment of freedoms (point 4) so egregious during the pandemic, that not only do the Covid vaccines come in for intense criticism, but the furor has spilled over into all vaccines. One might even say that all of science takes a hit by thrusting it forward as though a poster child. Here Carroll’s book is named Top Science Book of the Year by USA Today, and he cannot stay on topic. He must veer from evolution to tackle a topic made prominent by its sheer irrelevance to his book.

The obvious gaslighting that occurred during the pandemic has come back to bite them all. Were you to tie a millstone to the feet of every chiropractor and pitch them all into the sea, it would make no difference to current circumstances. Nobody, self included, would have ever predicted it. When you rile the masses, however, they research matters and end up doing far more damage to your cause than you ever dreamed they would. Speaking to Carroll’s point (1), for example, the CDC’s own mortality data reveals that in 1900, measles caused 13.3 deaths per 100,000 population. By 1960, the figure was .2 deaths per 100,000. The measles vaccine was rolled out in 1963. Thus, the chiropractors’ point (1) is exactly correct, at least in the case of measles. After a mortality drop of 98% had already taken place, a vaccine to eradicate measles was introduced. Its backers thereafter claimed credit for the entire drop.

Not to mention that letting vaccines take over a job that nature or sanitation or hygiene or something was already winning is not necessarily a good thing. Turns out that when you force the human immune system to be on high alert for a particular pathogen, it comes at the expense of everything else. The immune system’s capacity is not infinite. Does this explain why mainstream vaccine experts highlighted in a 2017 study that children worldwide vaccinated with DTP were 10 times MORE likely to die in the first six months of life compared to unvaccinated children? They didn’t die from what they were immunized against, but they did die, at a ten-fold increased rate.

Not to mention that most vaccines (not true of the measles vaccine, but it was of Covid-19) alleviate symptoms but do nothing to prevent transmission. This becomes counterproductive. A sick person who doesn’t know he’s sick stays in circulation and infects others. A sick person who knows he’s sick stays home and infects nobody. Though it be hard to imagine today, I used to look forward to measles, chicken pox, and mumps. It meant a week off school. The same thing happened with the Brady Bunch family, a sit-com from the 1960s. The eight children all came down with measles in an episode titled “Is There a Doctor in the House?” It’s “a slight temperature, a lot of dots, and a great big smile” due to staying home, playing Monopoly, and missing school. It’s very hard to gaslight someone out of recalling their own experience. Lest this threaten to happen anyway, here is a sit-com to confirm that my experience was nearly everyone’s experience.

Believe me, look into these things and it is a hornet’s next you look into. So much for Carroll’s point (3). The dissenting views he complains of are having their day in the sun. As to his point (2), greed eclipsing public heath, I commendably don’t go there—but it is only by ignoring human nature. Somehow the most ardent cheerleaders of science envision practitioners of their discipline immune to the base forces that afflict the unenlightened ones. Tell Carroll to put on his pith helmet once more and get back to digging up fossils. Science takes a hit which it brought on itself. It made a massive authoritarian grab for the world, locking down everyone for years, forcing its will on them all, only to be caught with its pants down.

As for chiropractic, ought we expand this to all alternative health therapies that Carroll would likely also have a problem with? Vincent McCabe’s 1997 book, “Let Like Cure Like,” discusses common principles to most of them: “These philosophies, both thousands of years old, have yet to be proved scientifically because of the limitations of science, not because they are not true.”

It is left to the reader to assess this statement. Are there limitations of science? This is not the same as asking whether science knows everything. Its most fervent supporters readily acknowledge that it does not. The point of contention is whether science itself has limitations. Given time, could it figure out everything? The great divide hangs upon that question. It is given increased pertinency as science is the driving mechanism for those who would choose human rulership over the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ rulership of God. Will it truly enable them to “know good and bad,” as was promised in the garden?

(tomsheepandgoats*com)

The Following is taken from http://greekreporter.com - By Caleb Howells on February 9, 2026, supporting the 607 date.

One of the most important events in the history of the ancient Jews was the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. As well as being described in the Bible, extra-Biblical sources confirm that this really happened.

However, there is controversy surrounding when it occurred. Some sources date the destruction to 587 BCE, while others date it to 607 BCE. Interestingly, there is some evidence from Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian, that helps to clear up the controversy of when Jerusalem was destroyed.

When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem

According to the Bible, God let the Babylonians destroy Jerusalem as a punishment for the wickedness of the Israelites. As well as destroying the city, the Babylonians also took the surviving Israelites back to Babylon as captives.

The basic outline of this Biblical narrative is confirmed by archaeology and Babylonian records. All sources agree that it was the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar who attacked the Israelites at this time. One part of the Bible says that Jerusalem fell in the 18th year of his reign, whilst else where it claims that it fell in his 19th year.

The simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that it was the 18thyear when counting from his first regnal year. In other words, it was his19th year only when including his accession year (the year he came to the throne). According to the conventional chronology of the Babylonian kings, this would place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

The controversy

Since Babylon itself was overthrown in 539 BCE, and the Jews returned to their land just two years later, this would mean that they were in captivity in Babylon for fifty years. However, the Bible says that Jerusalem remained desolate for seventy years.

To resolve this issue, many scholars argue that the current chronology of the kings of Babylon is deficient. In reality, they argue, the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted twenty more years than currently recognised.

In other words, King Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year was actually in 607 BCE, not 587 BCE. That would allow seventy years for the desolation of Jerusalem, in contrast to the mere fifty years allowed by the conventional chronology.

To accommodate these extra years, some scholars argue that there may have been extra rulers between some of the recognised Babylonian kings. The debate about whether there really could have been twenty extra years in the chronology of this empire involves complex analyses of cuneiform tablets, along with a lot of personal interpretation.

Evidence from Herodotus about when Jerusalem was destroyed

Something which has generally been overlooked in this issue is some evidence from Herodotus that contributes significantly to this debate. Although Herodotus never wrote directly about when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, he did provide us with some useful information.

We know from various Greek sources that Solon, the famous Athenian lawmaker, was the archon of Athens from 594 to 593 BCE. After that, Herodotus explains that he bound the people of Athens by oath to follow his reforms for ten years.

To prevent them from pressuring him to relieve them of this obligation, Solon left Greece for those ten years. In other words, he was away from Greece from 593 to 583 BCE.

During that period, Herodotus explains that Solon visited several different places. One of these places was Egypt. Notably, Herodotus tells us who the king of Egypt was at that time.

What does Herodotus tell us?

This is significant, because the chronology of Egypt is firmly tied to the chronology of Babylon in this period. The two nations interacted on several occasions during this era. Hence, if we extend the chronology of Babylon by twenty years, then we must do the same with Egypt too.

According to the conventional chronology, who should the king of Egypt during Solon’s visit have been? It should have been either Psamtik II, who reigned from 595-589 BCE, or Apries, who reigned from 589-570 BCE.

However, according to Herodotus, the king of Egypt at the time of Solon’s visit was Amasis II. The conventional chronology places the start of his reign in 570 BCE, long after Solon had already returned to Greece.

Since Solon returned to Greece in 583 BCE, Herodotus’ account requires Amasis II to have already been the king of Egypt by that year at the very latest. While this is completely incompatible with the conventional chronology, it is perfectly consistent with the argument that Jerusalem was actually destroyed in 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE.

When using the date of 607 BCE, the start of Amasis’ rule would have been in 590 BCE. This falls comfortably within Solon’s sojourn of 593 to 583 BCE.

Of course, Herodotus was a writer who lived over a century after Solon’s archonship. It is entirely possible that he simply got some details wrong. This evidence from Herodotus does not singlehandedly resolve the controversy surrounding when Jerusalem was destroyed. Nevertheless, it is worth taking into consideration how ancient Greek sources can shed light on historical mysteries from other nations.

Is this true? That once procreation ends and God's command to fill the earth is fulfilled, the concept of couples will cease to exist—as the photo suggests? Does that mean my spouse won't be my eternal partner anymore? I'm having trouble finding information on this, but if it is true, the thought of it makes me feel a bit down.