The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: namelesss

You don't need to leave out any part of God's word if you just accept the fact that he says that he himself will preserve his words to every generation forever. Read Psalm 12:6 and 7 and believe it and find it.

"The great snare of thought is the uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions!" - Will Durant
Just imagine if Xtians and Muslims (or anyone else) had no scriptural justification for their hatred and oppressions!
Seems sweet to me... *__-
And even the bible enjoins against 'belief' (of what you think and feel, for instance)!

What's more, every 'word' is God's word, so giving a critical update of God's word using God's word seems perfectly acceptable.

Someone gave me a 1995 edition of the "Schocken Bible" Vol 1 the five books of Moses. the very first verse tells me this is one of the 350 plus bibles out there is a perversion of the word of God.

I was thrown, with my family, from a Xtian community, in the middle of the night.
This was because I had a 'Jehovah's Witness bible in my backpack.
They wanted me to denounce it and burn it.
I hadn't read it yet, and told them so.
Reprobate me was 'outta there'.
I repeat, all words are God's words, and any and all 'words' that you so 'judge', therein you judge God!
Never a happy path. *__-

This bible version does not flow when reading it, it is a difficult read for anyone with a 5th grade or higher reading level. The English grammar has been thrown out the window and reads like a chopped up mess. This is like what you want to do leave it on the editing floor.

As all words are God's words, I'd not dump simply because they were unpleasant, discordant.
Any and all meaning exists in the thoughts of the beholder, and what one reads as meaningless dischord, another is swept away in rapturous Enlightenment!
I would take out anything 'judgmental', as that is the only sin, Pride, and it violates the message of unconditional Love transcending all!

Another Bible for the scrap pile.

I would wager that 'you', if you made a fair attempt, could find at least ten things written in that 'crappy bible' that you would give your stamp of approval.
And then ten more.

It seems that the various authors never meant for it all to be taken literally.
It is not possible to convey the unconditional transcendent in/by conditional dualistic words and thoughts.
Reading (anything) metaphorically leaves it all open to one's ability to understand/interpret at the moment.
Thus one can read the same thing a moment later and get something completely different from it.

a reply to: namelesss
A Key to Understanding the Bible: Awake!—2012

“How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? It can be interpreted in all kinds of ways!”

Have you heard people say that? Yet, did you know that it is possible to examine the Bible in such a way that it actually sheds light on itself? The secret is this: If the surrounding verses do not make the meaning of a particular statement clear, compare that statement with others in the Bible that discuss the same subject. In this way, we let the Bible, not personal opinion, guide our thinking.

Consider, for example, the Bible’s teaching on the condition of the dead. Below are six passages taken from different parts of the Bible. Notice how they form a harmonious picture. The scriptures are taken from the King James Version.

“The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.”—Psalm 115:17.

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”—Psalm 146:3, 4.

“The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.”—Ecclesiastes 9:5.

“The grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee . . . The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day.”—Isaiah 38:18, 19.

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”—Ezekiel 18:4.

Concerning the recent death of his friend Lazarus, Jesus Christ said: “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. . . . Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.”—John 11:11-14.

Do you see the harmony in these verses? Yes, contrary to popular beliefs, the Bible teaches that the dead are actually dead. They are not alive in heaven or somewhere else but are in a deep sleep, as it were, not conscious of anything. Hence, they cannot praise God or even think.*

The main point is this: When we examine the Bible by subject, its basic teachings become clear. Of course, this approach, which Jehovah’s Witnesses use, calls for effort. (Proverbs 2:1-5) But that is true of most things that are really worthwhile.

*: The Bible teaches that the dead who are in God’s memory will be ‘awakened,’ or resurrected, at God’s appointed time in the future.—See Job 14:14, 15; John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15.

The above also demonstrates the continuity, consistency or internal harmony of God's Word, or God's message, thus God as well. The entire bible from Genesis to Revelation speaks about the same God with the same message and the same teachings about subjects such as "What happens to you when you die?". And Psalms 115:17 has "Jehovah" there instead of "LORD" in The Divine Name King James Bible, likewise, ASV, NW, Darby, YLT and others. But the evidence and clues why that is the case are already in this thread.

The God of Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, the same God that his hearers had always been worshipping. For most of the last two thousand years, it would not have been necessary to say so. It was central to the Church’s understanding of the Bible, that the relation between God and his people is a continuous history, beginning with Abraham and coming to a climax with Jesus Christ. One and the same God, from Genesis to Revelation.

I don't buy it. It looks obvious from Gospel of John (8:44 etc) that Jesus was fighting the old beliefs, risking death in the process, which is also supported by the Mandaeans, in texts attributed to John the Baptist. The question is WHY?

Perhaps the Apocryphon of John has some truth in it. That Brahamic religions are not based on the Creator at all but a higher spirit subordinate to the Creator, that is jealous of other higher spirits etc. Unfortunately we mortals are unable to differentiate one from the other, so our belief systems is biased on style rather than substance, allowing people akin to Ron Hubbard, to fool otherwise intelligent beings, with religious dogma.

Perhaps LOVE for one another and PRAYER are the only two things needed for salvation. Everything else is superfluous and/or counteractive to attaining that goal.

a reply to: glend
Yet I have also been able to demonstrate this point from the words of that same John's gospel;
The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament
AND from the words of Jesus in the other gospels;
The God of Jesus, the God of the Old Testament
If everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus, believes they are worshipping the God of the Old Testament, then anyone who professes to accept the New Testament has to take their word for it. They knew what their faith was.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss
And Psalms 115:17 has "Jehovah" there instead of "LORD" in The Divine Name King James Bible, likewise, ASV, NW, Darby, YLT and others.

Seems like an odd assertion in that there was no 'J' in the Hebrew.
Seems like your favorite bibles didn't know that either.
What was that about changing a jot and tittle of scripture? Seems to be what the various versions do.
The 'J' was a later Romanization, even of Yeshua's (Jesus') NT name.
There are no 'J's in the OT/bible.
But that is beside the fact.

"What is your Name, Lord?" - Moses
"I Am that I Am!" - God to you to prevent the vanity of thinking that you are the ones with the only true holy name, which is what the ignorance of the JWs loudly proclaim, their ignorance of the entire meaning of Jesus' teachings and life and seem to be stuck in some dark corner of Jewish Hell, as no Xtian has any business in the bible/OT!

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

a reply to: namelesss

None of the letters from the Roman Alphabet that you have used in your comment are used in the old Hebrew language in which the original Hebrew Scriptures were written. There is also no "Y" in ancient Hebrew. Your issue with just the "J" especialy in response to just the name "Jehovah" (no response like that when someone else is using "Jesus" or "Melchizedek") is very telling.

John 5:
19 Therefore, in response Jesus said to them:
...
31 “If I alone bear witness about myself, my witness is not true.+ 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the witness he bears about me is true.+ 33 You have sent men to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.+ 34 However, I do not accept the witness from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 That man was a burning and shining lamp, and for a short time you were willing to rejoice greatly in his light.+ 36 But I have the witness greater than that of John, for the very works that my Father assigned me to accomplish, these works that I am doing, bear witness that the Father sent me.+ 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me.+ You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form,+ 38 and you do not have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the very one whom he sent.

39 “You are searching the Scriptures+ because you think that you will have everlasting life by means of them; and these are the very ones* that bear witness about me.+ 40 And yet you do not want to come to me+ so that you may have life. 41 I do not accept glory from men, 42 but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one. 44 How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?+

Proverbs 3:11, 12

11 My son, do not reject the discipline of Jehovah,

And do not loathe his reproof,

12 For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves,

Just as a father does a son in whom he delights.

As head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ, in expression of his affection, sees to it that needed discipline is provided.—Re 3:14, 19:

14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:

19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent.

A Christian is taught in the Scriptures to be imitators of Christ, this also counts for affectionate/loving "reprove and discpline" using the tool described at 2 Tim. 3:16.

2 Corinthians 11:11-15

For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows I do.

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

1 Timothy 1:5-7

Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

originally posted by: namelesss
"I Am that I Am!" - God to you to prevent the vanity of thinking that you are the ones with the only true holy name, which is what the ignorance of the JWs loudly proclaim, their ignorance of the entire meaning of Jesus' teachings and life and seem to be stuck in some dark corner of Jewish Hell, as no Xtian has any business in the bible/OT!

Matthew 27:39

39 And those passing by spoke abusively of him, shaking their heads

Hebrews 12:

3 Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such hostile speech from sinners+ against their own interests, so that you may not get tired and give up.*+

4 In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed. 5 And you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah,* nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah* loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges* everyone whom he receives as a son.”+

7 You need to endure as part of your discipline.* God is treating you as sons.+ For what son is not disciplined by his father?+ 8 But if you have not all shared in receiving this discipline, you are really illegitimate children, and not sons.
...
11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful;* yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

*: Or “grievous.”

These quotations (both comments) are also an example of the internal harmony and consistency of God's Word, His message to mankind and His teachings both in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek Scriptures. Others in this thread have preferred the term "continuity".

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: namelesss
"I Am that I Am!" - God to you to prevent the vanity of thinking that you are the ones with the only true holy name, which is what the ignorance of the JWs loudly proclaim, their ignorance of the entire meaning of Jesus' teachings and life and seem to be stuck in some dark corner of Jewish Hell, as no Xtian has any business in the bible/OT!

Matthew 27:39

39 And those passing by spoke abusively of him, shaking their heads...

One symptom of a 'belief infection is that the stronger the 'belief', the less available it becomes to critical examination, logical examination.
If you take umbrage over something in the bit that you quoted me saying, be specific and deal with it.
Don't drag out your impotent scriptural left-handed implications.
I am not speaking abusively of anyone.
Do you object to what I said about the JWs egoic/vain, Prideful obsession with the particular 'name of god'; 'Jehovah'?
I don't mind a proffered quote from your scripture du jour, but only in conjunction with your own rational thoughts and Knowledge/experience.
There is Knowledge/experience of/in Christ (unconditional Love/Enlightenment), and there is Knowledge/experience of books written about his alleged life, inclusive of some of his teachings, with others added later.
The experience of Christ ("You can be as I Am!" - Jesus), or the experience/Knowledge of stories 'about' Christ.

So, you going to continue proselytizing your vain 'special name of god' to me, while ignorant that ALL 'names' are God's Names?
Want the True 'Name', vain one?
Pronounce all the names of God throughout the Universe, ever, at the same time!
It doesn't sound anything like 'Jehovah', unless your Perspective is incapable of perceiving everything else.
Like isolating a single note in a symphony, a single thread in a tapestry, a single 'conditional' in the unconditional...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss

None of the letters from the Roman Alphabet that you have used in your comment are used in the old Hebrew language in which the original Hebrew Scriptures were written.

That is simply untrue.
Simplest example is the first two, aleph, bet= a, b= alphabet.
So, some of the letters in my post are most certainly in Hebrew.

There is also no "Y" in ancient Hebrew.

You are grasping at straws, and it means nothing.
Whether I wrote 'ia' or 'y', it matters none, the point remains valid.
And the only example that I needed to make my point is the 'J'.
Which I did.

Your issue with just the "J" especialy in response to just the name "Jehovah" (no response like that when someone else is using "Jesus" or "Melchizedek") is very telling.

And your attempted, and failed, ad-hom attack/fallacy is noted.
It usually indicates a 'belief' going, symptomatically, into self-defense mode.
There is a time and a place for everything, that I do not talk about the 'J' in Jesus' name is that he is most likely a fictitious character in the first place, and I have not felt the need to get pissy about it.
Until some fellow comes jungling his vanity in my face how God only listens to him because he has the magic name...
Sometimes I am inspired to respond.