Discourse On Paradigm Differences: for AA

[iris89]

Discourse On Paradigm Differences:

INTRODUCTION TO PARADIGM DIFFERENCES:

This writing will contrast the differences between two religious organizations, one stuck in a paradigm rut for over 1,700 years, and one that 'thinks outside the box' and develops new paradigms to go along with new Bible learning. It will show by the actions of the one stuck in the paradigm rut that in effect the Devil has gained control over it just as outlined in 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Paradigm shifts are necessary for any individual and/or group who wishes to advance and most of all take advantage of new learning; however, most groups and/or organizations cling to outdated and usually wrong paradigms and throw up a wall to any incoming data that does NOT AGREE with their particular paradigm. Now many may ask what is a paradigm shift and that is defined as is a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. As in 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolution", and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another. [source - Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962)].

Let's better illustrate this with an example by Kuhn on a paradigm shift some made when new data proved the old paradigm was wrong, and how one major organization opposed getting out of a paradigm rut, this will be later dealt with in detail. "Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt" [source - Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962) (p. 112)].

The resistance to the Copernican system by one organization stuck in a paradigm rut and the un-Christian extremes this organization went to under the control of Satan to kill the messenger.

ORGANIZATION STUCK IN A PARADIGM RUT:

Let's look at a religious organization that became stuck in a paradigm rut that let Satan take complete charge of their organization to reinforce their paradigm rut instead of following Christian principles expressed by Jesus (Yeshua) at Matthew 22:36-40, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 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." (American Standard Version; ASV); and by what it says about his Father, God (YHWH) at 1 John 4:8, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (ASV).

--1 ST. EXAMPLE--

Now lets look at how this so called Christian organization got stuck in a paradigm rut, over pseudo-science with respect the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) when they, if they were truly Christian should not even have worried over the latest flavor of pseudo-science thinking of the day.

This organization, while claiming to be Christ's organization on earth, caused great tribulation and even burnt some not believing their pseudo-science foolishness at the stake. Let's look at one account of such activity where they burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not what they believed, that the sun revolved around the earth.

"Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.

Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance-from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.

In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, the Roman Catholic Church grudgingly admitted that Galileo Galilei had been right in supporting the theories of Copernicus. The Holy Inquisition had forced an aged Galileo to recant his ideas under threat of torture in 1633. But no such admission has been made in the case of Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican's list of forbidden texts." [source - The Infinite Worlds of Giordano Bruno by Antoinette Mann Paterson, 1970].
So clearly this organization was stuck in a paradigm rut of their own making due to not obeying the word of, but the pseudo-science traditions of men that Jesus (Yeshua) warned against at Matthew 15:6, "he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. " (ASV); and Matthew 15:3, "And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? " (ASV).

Clearly this organization stuck in a paradigm rut since 325 A.D. when they first compromised true Christian belief to win the favor of a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconguered Sun rather than to follow the clearly given directions of Jesus (Yeshua) given at Mark 7:8, "Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." (ASV). This also in clear violation of Colossians 2:8, "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: " (ASV). Now let's look at the facts of this compromise with the Devil in detail.

--2 ND. EXAMPLE--

Mainstream religions through the ages have anything in common be they so called Christian or pagan? Absolutely, history shows that one mainstream religion evolved into another one while maintaining many of the beliefs of the one before it, but simply changing the name of the God(s). No where is this more self evident than with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. In has been with us since at least the time of ancient Sumeria as shown by The historian H. W. F. Saggs explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three gods of roughly equal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures." Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? (*1). No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day." (*2).

Yes, the concept of a trinity has been a prevailing belief for a very, very long time perhaps longer than most Christians would imagine. While worshipping innumerable minor deities, triads of gods appeared in all the ancient cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece and finally Rome. The "mysteries" of the first universal civilization, Babylonia, were transported down in time. The names of the gods changed. The details of ancient incomprehensible religions changed, but the essential ideas were the same. The Sumerians worshipped Anu (the Father), Enlil (the god of earth) and Enki (the lord of wisdom). The Egyptians worshipped Amun who was really three gods in one: Re was his face; Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity "combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4 - page 201).

Now with respect the next evolution of mainstream religion, the Egyptian, Egypt's history is nearly as old as Sumeria's. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; and Amun his hidden identity (*3). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4). A hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the Egyptian trinity: "All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah." (*5). Certainly is not this positive indicator that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? However, Durant submits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (*6). Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." (*7). And The Encyclopedia of Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity "came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, it developed a trinity of its own." (* .

The next evolution or more correctly one concurrent with the Egyptian but originating also from the early Sumeria was the Babylonian. A very important evolution of spread originated from the Babylonian trinity that ultimately spread to Rome by way of the Etrusans. The Etruscans were a group that all indicators indicate as having originated in Babylon. As they slowly passed through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva (*9). This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome [that] it was imitated in the capitolia of Italy. . . (*7 - page 26)" Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No, but an extremely significant indicator of this fact. However, Dr. Gordon Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman Paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. (*7). Pelikan adds to Laing's work when he states that the early church fathers used and cited the Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that these were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic Celsus. (*10). There was even a medieval hymn, "Dies irae" which prophesied the coming of the day of wrath on the "dual authority of David and the Sibyl." (*10 - page 64-65).

Now let's consider the ancient Grecian world; And in order to fully understand it, we need to digress to gaining an understanding of the origins of the word Trinity and the two types that existed in the ancient world and evolved into the Trinity of mainstream so called Christian religions. First, the word trinity comes from the kemetic language. It consist actually of two words: hemt (three) and neter (which carries the concepts of gods). Therefore, Trinity defines a concept of three gods.

Ths pantheon of Gods is composed of two categories of Gods. We have the creator and self-created Gods on one side and the creator gods that are non autogenic on the other. The creator Gods that are self-created are those who form the first group of trinities. The gods that are not self-created then form the second group of trinities. The Gods of the second trinity exist only in the context o***roup of Gods composed o***od-father, a Goddess-mother, and a God-son. They are somehow considered very close to the human nature. The original second group of trinities came from a story known as the holy drama, and is composed by a God-father called Wsr (Osiris) and a goddess-mother Aishat (Isthar or Isis) and the God-son Heru (Horus). It is the second group of trinities that taught humanity the concept of a family, giving a man and woman the idea of a spiritual union with the goal of procreation. We should observe that the importance of the trinities is such that they became a serious problem for the monotheistic religions that are stubbornly talking about the creation of the world by one single god while they are still maintaining the concept of a trinity.

The ancient Trinities of the Greek's were composed of the God-son Perseus, born from Zeus and Danae; Hercules born from Zeus and Alcmene; Apollo born from Zeus and Leto; Dionysos born from Zeus and Semele; Minos born from Zeus and Europe; Aesculapius born from Apollo and Coronis. (*11-A).

It if from an evolutionary merging of ancient Greek trinities and Roman trinities that in themselves partially evolved from the Greek, but with a precedence being taken by the Etruscans' of their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. (*9). This trinity as previously mentioned, became the ancient Roman Trinity of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which was campaigned by the mainstream religions of the empire of that era. Even the names of the gods in this Trinity reflect from whence it came. (*7). This one is of extreme importance to us of the modern era as it evolved into the Trinity of the mainstream so called Christian religions of today. This Trinity consisted of Jesus born from Yahweh and Mary. However, this new concept of trinities that is presented by the new Christian authorities only comes to add on the contradictions that were undermining the psychological stability of the human of the modern society. The Trinity of the modern time that the religions want us to accept is composed o***od-father, a God-son and a mother that is purely human and considered virgin. (*11).

However since the mother, the Virgin Mary, she is a human, she cannot be classified as a Goddess, and that will not complete the concept of trinity. In this evolution, the religious authorities had to use a little creativity to overcome this; the concept of personalizing the power or force of the supreme God (YHWH), Yahweh. To do this, something new had to enter the equation. What was this?

Whereas, the Gods of the first trinities stayed really far away from the philosophical and political arguments of the society, but the leaders used that fact to kind of drown them in the collective memory of the society. The world has been created in stages. The Gods of the first trinity are recognized by the fact that the first two of them have created the four elements (fire, air, water and matter) and the third God has used them to fashion and create everything that exists. The gods of the first trinity do not intervene in our daily lives, but they guarantee the harmony of the universe. They some-how occupy a very important place in the spiritual essence of anything that exists. By recognizing their exist-ence, we are illuminating the universal conscious on the makers of this world that we are trying to redefine. (*11).

At this point, we need to pause and regress a little. One may ask, How do we know these trinities are not just misrepresentations of the real threeness of God? (After all there were "flood stories" in every culture too reminiscent of the Genesis account.) Assyrian clay tablets now available have most strikingly confirmed the narrative of Scripture which give us revealing insight into our questions (*12). Where did the idea of a three-in-one God originate? After the flood, Nimrod a descendent of Noah's son Ham settled in Asia: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel out of that land went forth Asshur [mar., "he went out into Assyria"] and builded Nineveh" (Genesis 10:8-11). "Mighty hunter" was the title given to the great conquering warrior-monarchs of the time. In rebellion of God's command to disburse and people the earth, Nimrod built the Tower of Babel, became very powerful and was even worshipped. We now know the ancient Babylonians worshipped the first person in the Godhead, the Great Invisible, also the Spirit of God incarnate in the human mother and also the Divine Son. Nimrod was this "Son," the first king of Babel, Babylon. And so in this the first notion of a triune God was born. (*7).

In the immediate centuries before the advent of Jesus Christ, we see Plato even in his deeply philosophical mode proposing a trinity of sorts. ("The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul"). Through all cultures, this perversion of the truth about God was handed down. (*7).

One God (YHWH), One culture, however, escaped this corruption of truth. From the line of Shem, Noah's other son, Abraham was called out of "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11:31; 12:1,2), the ancient Babylonian empire. His descendants were given the revelation of God by Moses from Mount Sinai. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). No Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. Some verses have been pressed into use by Trinitarians, but without success. For example, in the creation account, Genesis says, "God [elohim, plural.] created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). However, the plural does not have to do with number; it is "plentitude of might" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, The Soncino Press). In any case, the verb "created" is singular, and would not indicate two gods, let alone three. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament (Vol. XIV, 306). And the world renown "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" says, under the article on the Trinity in it, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT a biblical term....In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason." (*14).

See Part 2 on Paradigms for AA

[iris89]

Part 2 on Paradigms for AA


While he walked the earth, Jesus clearly acknowledged, "My Father is greater than I" (*15) and that it was his Father who sent him, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (*16). He consistently acknowledged God as the source of power for his miracles and finally implored his Father, "yet not my will but thine be done." (*17) he be the one sent and also the Sender and why would he pray to himself that not his will but His other will be done? It seems the Trinitarians only answer, "It's a mystery"?

If the trinity is supposed to be an unexplainable "mystery," why do the apostles always talk about revealing mysteries to Christians? "I would not have you ignorant of this mystery [about Jewish blindness] (*1 the revelation of the mystery (*19) the mystery hidden God hath revealed (*20 1 Corinthians 2:7) Behold I show you a mystery (*21) "having made known the mystery of his will" (*22) "to make known the mystery of Christ" (*23) "make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (*24), etc. So how did the Christian Church accept a mystery of a trinity? This will be shown in the next part.

--history of political intrigue and deceit that evolved the trinity into so called Christianity--

To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.

In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).

Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).


The fact is so called Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).
[sources -
*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: New American Library. 1968.
*2 - Hislop, Alexander. "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship." 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.
*3 - Hart, George. "Egyptian Myths." Austin: U of Texas. 1990.
*4 - Durant, Will. "Our Oriental Heritage". New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization.11 vols. 1935-75. (page 201)
*5 - Hornung, Erik. "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many." Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.
*6 - Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75. (page 595)
*7 - Laing, Gordon Jennings. "Survivals of Roman Religion.". New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.
*8 - The Encyclopedia of Religions.
*9 - Carter, Jesse Benedict. "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: A Study in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from the Foundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great." New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1972. (page 16-19).
*10 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
*11-A - heraldmag.org
*11 - Morodenibig, Naba Lamoussa. "Light From the Trinities."
*12 - Edersheim Bible History (page 59-62).
*13 - New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Vol. XIV, 306).
*14 - International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012).
*15 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 116 in NT, John 14:29)
*16 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40).
*17 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 in NT, St. Luke 22:42).
*18 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 205 in NT, Romans 11:25).
*19 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 in NT, Romans 16:25)
*20 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 213 in NT, 1 Corinthians 2:7).
*21 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 in NT,1 Corinthians 15:51).
*22 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9).
*23 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19).
*24 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27).
*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).
*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"
*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.]

As we have seen how one so called Christian group has been stuck in a paradigm rut, a trap set by none other than Satan the Devil to ensnarled them and make them his followers whilst many of their members do not comprehend who has successfully controlled their group since 325 A.D. in a paradigm rut that becomes ever deeper and harder to break out of with each passing year.



ORGANIZATION NOT STUCK IN A PARADIGM RUT:

Now let's look at an example of a religious organization that is NOT stuck in a paradigm rut , but instead constantly studies the Bible, the Bible being the Standard for God (YHWH) acceptable religious belief and not creeds and doctrines of men. While those so called Christian organizations who have fallen in the Devil's trap of a paradigm rut are no longer true Christians; there is a group that is NOT a part of so called mainstream religion, as would be expected due to what futurist Joel Barker said paraphrased as follows, "Data that did not go with preconceived notions is filtered out and stops us from seeing reality or making break through solutions or developing new ideas or re-thinking and making corrections in previous ones to fit with new learning or data."

Since as the foregoing in this article clearly shows how most get into paradigm ruts we must look for a group that can make paradigm shifts as new learning and/or data is received to identify a true Christian organization. Of course, this organization would NOT be a part of so called mainstream any more than 'break through' innovations in industrial science by industrial leaders in an industry. Whereas, Nokia made the break-through to digital portable communications while being a small outfit on the fringe of mobile phone communications, but the former leader, Motorola, was still in the analogue mobile communications paradigm rut, a small religious group, Jehovah's Witnesses, was capable of making rapid paradigm shifts to come in line with advanced Bible learning and new MS (ancient manuscript) finds that mainstream groups ensnared in the Devil's paradigm rut traps could not make.

As an example, a long time ago they said, the following:
These two quotes from your early publications show what were the "mayor events" the JWs thought would take place:

1897 "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874," Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, page 621.

1899 "...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." The Time Is at Hand, page 101 (1908 edition).

Yet with new Biblical learning and study of recently found MS not only readily accepted the incoming data with no attempt to filter it out, but quickly were able to change their paradigms to be in accord with it as can be seen by anyone who reads their current publications. They now realize the true significance of the marked year 1914 and also realize that Jesus (Yeshua) return would NOT be visible as they once thought. They are the true Bible scholars as they continue to search and study all new information and input data with a view of NOT filtering out that which does NOT agree with their previous thinking, BUT WITH A VIEW TO BRINGING THEIR CURRENT THINKING INTO LINE WITH revealed new information.

Of course this is in line with what Thomas S. Kuhn said in his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962) when he said, my paraphrase, "Agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today [such as Jehovah's Witnesses]. There signs are all around us testifying to this fact today. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the Internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant." [source - Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962)].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

For AA for question 2A)

What Is God's Purpose?
MANY people who doubt the existence of an all-powerful, loving God ask: If God does exist, why has he allowed so much suffering and wickedness throughout history? Why does he allow the sorry state of things we see around us today? Why does he not do something to bring an end to war, crime, injustice, poverty, and other miseries that are escalating at an alarming rate in so many countries of the earth?

It is suggested by some that God created the universe, installed humans on planet Earth, and then left them to run their own affairs. According to this view, God would not be to blame for the trouble and misery that people bring upon themselves because of their greed or mismanagement.

However, others reject such a theory. For example, physics professor Conyers Herring, who acknowledges a belief in God, states: "I reject the idea o***od who long ago set a great clockwork in motion and has since been sitting back as a spectator while mankind wrestles with the puzzle. One reason for my rejection of this is that my scientific experience gives me no reason to believe that there is any 'clockwork' model of the universe that is ultimately and finally the correct one. Our scientific theories . . . will always be capable of greater and greater refinement, but I feel sure they will always prove imperfect. It is safer, I think, to have faith in the living force that makes this improvement always possible."

God Does Have a Purpose
God's original purpose was for planet Earth to be inhabited by righteous, perfect humans. The prophet Isaiah wrote: "This is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited."—Isaiah 45:18.

Rather than populate the earth through the direct creation of individual humans, God purposed to fill the earth by means of procreation by humans. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, this did not thwart his original purpose, but it did cause a necessary adjustment of some details in order for his purpose regarding humans and the earth to be fulfilled.

For about the first 6,000 years of this period, God has allowed mankind to operate independently of his direct guidance. That is what our original parents chose of their own free will. (Genesis 3:17-19; Deuteronomy 32:4, 5) This allowance of independence from God's guidance and the subsequent rule by humans instead of by God would show up man's inability to direct his own steps and his inability to govern his fellowmen successfully.

Jehovah, of course, had known this outcome in advance. He inspired Bible penmen to put it into words. For example, the prophet Jeremiah wrote: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."—Jeremiah 10:23.

The wise man Solomon commented on the disastrous results that follow when humans attempt to dominate their fellows, as they have over the centuries. "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his injury."—Ecclesiastes 8:9.

However, far from "sitting back as a spectator while mankind wrestles with the puzzle," Almighty God has had good reason for allowing the passage of these thousands of years without intervening directly in the lives of the majority of mankind.


In God's new world, people will live forever in happiness


A Good Purpose Served
The past 6,000 years of human history may seem a long time when compared with our average life span of less than 100 years. But according to God's timetable and his view of the passing of time, these thousands of years are like six days—less than one week! The apostle Peter explained: "Let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."—2 Peter 3:8.

Peter then goes on to counter any charge of negligence or procrastination on God's part, by adding: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."—2 Peter 3:9.

Thus, when the allotted years have run their course, the Creator will bring an end to the mismanagement of our beautiful planet. He will have allowed ample time for man to demonstrate his inability to govern or to bring an end to war, violence, poverty, sickness, and other causes of suffering. This will confirm by actual experience what God indicated to humans in the beginning—that they must follow divine guidance to be successful.—Genesis 2:15-17.

According to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, we now live in the final part of "the last days" of this ungodly system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; Matthew 24:3-14) God's toleration of human rule independent of him as well as of wickedness and suffering is nearing its end. (Daniel 2:44) Soon the greatest tribulation this world has ever witnessed will be upon us, culminating in "the war of the great day of God the Almighty," Armageddon. (Revelation 16:14, 16) This God-directed war will not destroy God's handiwork the earth, but it will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth."—Revelation 11:18.

God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years
There will be millions of survivors on earth when Armageddon has run its course. (Revelation 7:9-14) The prophecy at Proverbs 2:21, 22 will have been fulfilled: "The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it."

God's purpose is that a special period of a thousand years will follow the righteous war of Armageddon. (Revelation 20:1-3) This will constitute the Millennial Reign of God's Son, Christ Jesus, as King of God's heavenly Kingdom. (Matthew 6:10) During this joyful Kingdom rule over the earth, countless millions will be resurrected from their sleep in death to join the millions of Armageddon survivors. (Acts 24:15) Together they will be restored to perfection, and then—at the end of the Thousand Year Reign of Christ—the earth will finally be filled with perfect men and women, all descendants of Adam and Eve. God's purpose will have been carried out gloriously and successfully.

Yes, God's purpose is to "'wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.' And the One seated on the throne said: 'Look! I am making all things new.'" (Revelation 21:4, 5) Without fail, that purpose will be fulfilled in the very near future.—Isaiah 14:24, 27.

Can we know exactly who the true God is? "Identifying the Only True God" is the theme of the next article.

[iris89]

For AA for for 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, & 3E.

Why Does God Permit Suffering?


God's Permission of Suffering
Nears Its End


In this series:
The Problem of Human Suffering
God's Permission of Suffering Nears Its End

Related topics:
What Is the Purpose of Life?
Why Does God Allow Us to Suffer?
Did God Condone the Slave Trade?


EVERYWHERE you look, there is suffering. Some people bring it on themselves. They contract sexually transmitted diseases or experience the effects of drug or alcohol abuse or of smoking. Or they may encounter health problems because of poor eating habits. However, much suffering results from factors or events beyond the control of the average person: war, ethnic violence, crime, poverty, famine, disease. Something else that humans basically cannot control is suffering related to aging and death.

The Bible assures us that "God is love." (1 John 4:8) Why, then, has a loving God allowed all this suffering to continue for so many centuries? When will he remedy the situation? To answer such questions, we need to examine God's purpose with regard to humans. This will help us to understand why God has allowed suffering and what he will do about it.

The Gift of Free Will

When God created the first human, he produced more than just a body with a brain. Further, God did not create Adam and Eve to be mindless robots. He implanted in them the faculty of free will. And that was a fine gift, for "God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Yes, "perfect is his activity." (Deuteronomy 32:4) All of us appreciate this gift of free will because we do not want all our thoughts and actions dictated to us without ever having a choice in anything.

However, was the fine gift of free will to be used without limits? In directions given to early Christians, God's Word answers: "Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as slaves of God." (1 Peter 2:16) For the common good, there must be boundaries. Hence, free will was to be regulated by the rule of law. Otherwise, anarchy would result.

Whose Law?

Whose law was to determine the proper limits of freedom? The answer to this question has to do with the fundamental reason why God has permitted suffering. Since God created humans, he knows best what laws they need to obey for their own good and for the good of others. The Bible puts it this way: "I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk."—Isaiah 48:17.

Clearly, a vital point is this: Humans were not created to be independent of God. He made them in such a way that their success and happiness depend on obedience to his righteous laws. God's prophet Jeremiah said: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."—Jeremiah 10:23.

God made mankind subject to his physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Similarly, he made humans to be subject to his moral laws, which are designed to result in a harmonious society. For good reason, then, God's Word urges: "Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding."—Proverbs 3:5.

Thus, the human family could never be successful in regulating itself without God's rulership. Trying to be independent from him, people would devise social, economic, political, and religious systems that would conflict with one another, and 'man would dominate man to his injury.'—Ecclesiastes 8:9.

What Went Wrong?

God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. They had perfect bodies and minds and a paradise garden for a home. If they had submitted to God's rule, they would have remained perfect and happy. In time, they would have been the parents of an entire perfect, happy human family living on a paradise earth. That was God's purpose for the human race.—Genesis 1:27-29; 2:15.

However, our original ancestors misused their free will. They wrongly thought that they could be successful independent of God. Of their own free will, they stepped outside the boundaries of his laws. (Genesis, chapter 3) Because they rejected his rulership, he no longer was obligated to sustain them in perfection. 'They acted ruinously on their own part, did not remain his children, and the defect was their own.'—Deuteronomy 32:5.

From the time they disobeyed God, Adam and Eve began to degenerate in body and mind. With Jehovah is the source of life. (Psalm 36:9) So because of cutting themselves off from Jehovah, the first human couple became imperfect and eventually died. (Genesis 3:19) Consistent with laws of genetic inheritance, their offspring could receive only what their parents themselves possessed. And what was that? It was imperfection and death. The apostle Paul therefore wrote: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."—Romans 5:12.

The Main Issue—Sovereignty

When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they challenged his sovereignty, that is, his right to rule. Jehovah could have destroyed them and started over with another couple, but that would not have settled the issue of whose rulership is right and best for people. Granted time to develop their societies according to their own ideas, humans would demonstrate beyond any doubt whether rulership independent from God could ever be successful.

What do thousands of years of human history tell us? For all those centuries, people have tried many kinds of social, economic, political, and religious systems. However, wickedness and suffering have continued. In fact, 'wicked men have advanced from bad to worse,' especially in our time.—2 Timothy 3:13.

The 20th century saw a peak of scientific and industrial achievements. But it also saw the worst suffering in the entire history of the human race. And no matter what medical advances are made, the law of God still holds true: Humans separated from God—the source of life—get sick, grow old, and die. How clearly it has been proved that humans cannot 'direct their own steps'!

God's Sovereignty Asserted

Once and for all time, this tragic experiment in independence from God has demonstrated that rulership by humans apart from him can never succeed. Only God's rulership can bring happiness, unity, health, and life. Moreover, Jehovah God's infallible Word, the Holy Bible, shows that we are living in "the last days" of human rule independent from God. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Jehovah's toleration of this and of wickedness and suffering is nearing its end.

God will soon intervene in human affairs. The Scriptures tell us: "In the days of those kings [human rulerships now existing] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [never again will humans rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [present rulerships], and it itself will stand to times indefinite."—Daniel 2:44.

The vindication of Jehovah God's sovereignty by means of the heavenly Kingdom is the Bible's theme. Jesus made this his foremost teaching. He said: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."—Matthew 24:14.

When God's rulership replaces man's rule, who will survive and who will not? At Proverbs 2:21, 22, we are assured: "The upright [who uphold God's rule] are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked [who do not uphold God's rule], they will be cut off from the very earth." The divinely inspired psalmist sang: "Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more . . . But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29.



A Marvelous New World

Under the rulership of God's Kingdom, survivors of the end of the present system of things will be ushered into an earth cleansed of wickedness and suffering. God-given instruction will be provided for mankind, and in time "the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea." (Isaiah 11:9) This upbuilding, positive teaching will result in a truly peaceful, harmonious human society. Thus, there will be no more war, murder, violence, rape, theft, or any other crime.

Marvelous physical benefits will flow to obedient humans living in God's new world. There will be a canceling out of all the bad consequences of rebellion against God's rule. Imperfection, sickness, old age, and death will be things of the past. The Bible assures us: "No resident will say: 'I am sick.'" Moreover, the Scriptures promise: "At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness." (Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6) What a thrill it will be to enjoy vibrant health every day—forever!

Under God's loving direction, the inhabitants of that new world will use their energies and skills in building an earth-wide paradise. Gone forever will be poverty, hunger, and homelessness, for Isaiah's prophecy states: "They will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating." (Isaiah 65:21, 22) Indeed, "they will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble."—Micah 4:4.

The earth will respond to the loving care of God and obedient humans. We have these Scriptural assurances: "The wilderness and the waterless region will exult, and the desert plain will be joyful and blossom as the saffron. . . . In the wilderness waters will have burst out, and torrents in the desert plain." (Isaiah 35:1, 6) "There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; on the top of the mountains there will be an overflow."—Psalm 72:16.

What about the billions of people who have died? Those in God's memory will be brought back to life, for "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) Yes, the dead will be restored to life. They will be taught the wonderful truths regarding God's rulership and be given the opportunity to live forever in Paradise.—John 5:28, 29.

The Failure of Human Rule
Regarding human rulership, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated: "We humans . . . have always only partially governed the world, and most of the time very badly. . . . We have never governed it in total peace." Human Development Report 1999 noted: "All countries report erosion of their social fabric, with social unrest, more crime, more violence in the home. . . . Global threats are increasing, outgrowing national abilities to tackle them, and outpacing international responses."


By these means, Jehovah God will completely reverse the awful condition of suffering, sickness, and death that has held mankind in its grip for thousands of years. No more sickness! No more disabilities! No more death! God "will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things [will] have passed away."—Revelation 21:3, 4.


That is how God will end suffering. He will destroy this corrupt world and usher in an entirely new system of things in which "righteousness is to dwell." (2 Peter 3:13) What good news this is! We desperately need that new world. And we will not have to wait long to see it. From the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, we know that the new world is at the door, and God's permission of suffering is nearing its end.—Matthew 24:3-14.

[iris89]

For AA for 3D

Discourse on the Ransom Provided by Christ and Why Necessary:

INTRODUCTION:

Many know that salvation can only come through Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as his Father (YHWH) has appointed him the only mediator between God (YHWH) and man as testified to at to at 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (The Webster Bible); And this is further affirmed at Ephesians 3:11-12, "for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father." (American Standard Version,(ASV). He is the only savior, apart from him there is no other as shown by John 4:42, "and they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world." (ASV); And affirmed at Titus 1:4, "to Tite, most dereworthe sone bi the comyn feith, grace and pees of God the fadir, and of Crist Jhesu, oure sauyour." (Wycliffe-One of the first English Bibles). However, before he could become our savior, a ransom had to be paid. Why so?

THE NEED OF A RANSOM:

Let's let the Bible explain why there was a need for a ransom to be paid before any of mankind could be saved. The Bible shows at Romans 5:12, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (The Webster Bible); And it is shown that all men have sinned, and this is testified to at Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (The Webster Bible). In other words all of mankind is under inherited sin as shown by Psalms 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (ASV); Therefore, Psalms 49:7-9 shows, "None `of them' can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him; 8(For the redemption of their life is costly, And it faileth for ever;) 9 That he should still live alway, That he should not see corruption." (ASV)

GOD (YHWH) HIMSELF MADE PROVISION FOR A RANSOM:

Since God (YHWH) could not break his own law of like for like, he provided for a ransome for all obedient mankind as testified to at 1 John 4:14, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son `to be' the Saviour of the world." (ASV); And affirmed at Matthew 1:20-21, "But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins." (ASV).

His making provisions to provide a ransom in the form of his only begotten son was an expression of his love for mankind as shown by John 3:16-17, "
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him." (ASV); And affirmed at 1 John 4:9-10, "Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son `to be' the propitiation for our sins." (ASV); And at Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (ASV).

PRICE PAID FOR RELEASE FROM BONDAGE TO SIN AND DEATH - THE RANSOM:

Jesus (Yeshua) came to give his life as a ransom as testified to at Matthew 20:28, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (The Webster Bible); And at 1 John 3:5, "And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin." (ASV); And at Romans 3:24, "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" (ASV); And at Hebrews 2:14-15, "Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (ASV).

Jesus' (Yeshua's) human life was represented by his blood being poured out onto death as a ransom as shown at John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep." (ASV); And at 1 Peter 1:18-19, "knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, `even the blood' of Christ:" (ASV); And at Ephesians 1:7, "in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace," (ASV); And at Revelation 5:9, "And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood `men' of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," (ASV).

CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS AS A SACRIFICE ON MAN'S BEHALF, HE WAS SINLESS:

That he was sinless and thus could serve as a sacrifice for our sins was shown at Hebrews 7:26 and 9:25-26, "For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;" and "nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; 26 else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."(ASV); And at 1 Peter 2:22, "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" (ASV); And at 1 John 4:10, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son `to be' the propitiation for our sins."

Since Jesus (Yeshua) was sinless, his life could provide the ransom price for the perfect human life Adam lost and which he could have passed along by inheritance to his children as shown by 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, `himself' man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony `to be borne' in its own times;" And at Phillipians 2:7-8, "but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient `even' unto death, yea, the death of the cross." (ASV); And at 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (ASV).

After his resurrection by his Father (YHWH), a distinct spiritual being, Christ presented the value of his sacrifice to his Father (YHWH) in heaven as shown at Hebrews 9:11-12 & 24, "But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." And "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us:" (ASV); And at Romans 8:34, "who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (ASV); And at Ephesians 5:2, "and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell." (ASV).

THE PURPOSE AND THE BENEFITS OF THE RANSOM:

Jesus (Yeshua) gave up his life for us as foretold at Isaiah 53:12, "portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (ASV); And at Hebrews 2:9, "But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, `even' Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every `man'." (ASV); And at Galacians 1:4, "who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father:" (ASV).

RANSOM PERMITTED FORGIVENESS OF SINS:

That Jesus (Yeshua) was the one who would take away sins was testified to at John 1:29, "On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" (ASV); And at Ephesians 1:7, "in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace," (ASV); And at 1 John 1:7, "but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (ASV); And at 1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." (ASV); And at Revelation 7:9-10 & 14, "After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of `all' tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb" and "And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (ASV).

RECONCILIATION TO GOD (YHWH):

Jesus (Yeshua) was first with respect to being the first of God's (YHWH's) children that God (YHWH) caused to be created and the first to be resurrected as testified to at Colossians 1:18-20, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it was the good pleasure `of the Father' that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, `I say', whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." (ASV); And at 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, "But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (ASV); And at Romans 5:10, "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;" (ASV).

This makes possible the general resurrection for mankind with opportunity for eternal life as affirmed at Hebrews 9:26-28, "else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this `cometh' judgment; 28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." (ASV); And at John 5:26-29, For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: 27 and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, 29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment." (ASV); And at Romans 14:9, "For to this end Christ died and lived `again', that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (ASV); And at Acts 24:15, "having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust." (ASV).

EFFECTS OF SIN REMOVED DURING CHRIST 1,000 YEAR RULE:

During the thousand year rule of Christ, the effects of sin on the earth will be removed as foretold at Revelation 21:2-4, "made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, `and be' their God: 4 and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away." (ASV).

This will pave the way for everlasting life for those who manifest faith and obedience as testified to at John 3:16 & 36, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." And "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (ASV); And at Hebrews 5:9, "and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation;" (ASV).

WE MUST HAVE APPRECIATION FOR THE RANSOM AND CHANGE OUR COURSE OF LIFE ACCORDINGLY:

We must show appreciation for Jesus' (Yeshua's) ransome sacrifice as shown at Hebrews 9:14, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (ASV); And at Revelation 7:14-15, "And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them." (ASV); And at Titus 2:13-14, "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works." (ASV); And at 1 Corinthians 6:20, "for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body." (ASV); 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again." (ASV); And at 1 John 4:11, "Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (ASV).

[iris89]

For AA for 4B and 4C

When Germs Will Not Harm AnyoneGERMS, or microorganisms, are essential to life. They make up a considerable portion of earth's soil and of our own bodies. As the box "Kinds of Germs" notes, "bacteria inhabit our bodies by the trillions." Most of these are beneficial—in fact, vital—to health. Although only relatively few cause disease, we can be confident that, in time, no germs will harm anyone.

Before we examine the means by which all harmful effects of germs will be eliminated, let's consider current efforts to combat disease-causing germs. Besides examining the accompanying box "What You Can Do," consider the efforts of health professionals to combat resistant germs.

Global StrategiesDr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), described efforts being made. In the Report on Infectious Diseases 2000, "Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance," she pointed to a need to develop "a global strategy to contain resistance" of germs. She also spoke of building "alliances involving all healthcare providers," emphasizing: "We have an opportunity to launch a massive effort against infectious diseases."

In 2001, WHO proposed a "Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance." This document presented a plan directed to health-care providers and people in general regarding "what to do and how to do it." The strategy included educating people on how to avoid getting sick, as well as providing instruction to them on how to use antibiotics and other antimicrobials when they get an infection.

In addition, health-care workers—doctors and nurses as well as others working in hospitals and nursing homes—were urged to take better measures to avoid the spread of infection. Sadly, studies have revealed that many health professionals still neglect to wash their hands or change gloves between patients.

Surveys have also shown that doctors prescribe antibiotics when they shouldn't. One reason for this is that people pressure their doctor to give an antibiotic as a quick cure. So doctors comply, simply to please patients. Often doctors neither take the time to educate their patients nor have the means available to identify the infecting germ. Also, they may prescribe newer but more expensive broad-spectrum antibiotics. And this too contributes to the drug-resistance problem.

Other areas addressed in WHO's Global Strategy are hospitals, national health systems, food producers, pharmaceutical companies, and lawmakers. The report encourages cooperation among all of them in order to combat the global menace of drug-resistant germs. But will such a program work?

Obstacles to SuccessThe WHO Global Strategy alluded to a major obstacle to solving health problems. It is the profit motive—money. The Bible says that the love of it is responsible for "all sorts of injurious things." (1 Timothy 6:9, 10) WHO urges: "Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry must also be considered, including appropriate control of the access of sales representatives to clinical staff and monitoring industry-sponsored educational programmes for providers."

Drug companies have aggressively presented their products to doctors. Now they do so directly to the public through TV advertising. This has evidently contributed to the overuse of drugs, which, in turn, has been a major factor in the proliferation of drug-resistant germs.

In its chapter on the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, the WHO Global Strategy states: "Veterinarians in some countries earn as much as 40% or more of their income by the sale of drugs, so there is a disincentive to limit antimicrobial use." As is well documented, resistant germs have emerged and flourished because of the inordinate use of antibiotics.

The production of antibiotics is, in fact, astounding. In the United States alone, some 50 million pounds of antibiotics are produced annually! Of the world's total production, only about half is used for people. The rest is either sprayed on crops or fed to animals. Antibiotics are commonly mixed with the feed of animals raised for food to speed their growth.

The Role of GovernmentsSignificantly, the Executive Summary of the WHO Global Strategy states: "Much of the responsibility for implementation of the strategy will fall on individual countries. Governments have a critical role to play."

To be sure, a number of governments have developed programs to contain antimicrobial resistance, with emphasis on collaboration inside and outside their national boundaries. These programs include better tracking of antimicrobial use and resistant microbes, improved infection control, appropriate use of antimicrobials in medicine and agriculture, research to understand resistance, and development of new medicines. WHO's Report on Infectious Diseases 2000 was not optimistic. Why?

The report pointed to "a lack of political will on the part of governments whose priorities may not be public health." It added: "Disease—and therefore resistance—also thrives in conditions of civil unrest, poverty, mass migration and environmental degradation where large numbers of people are exposed to infectious diseases." Unfortunately, these very problems are ones that human governments have never been able to solve.

However, the Bible tells o***overnment that will not only solve the problems that spawn disease but also eliminate sickness altogether. You may think that some germs will always cause harm, but there are good reasons to believe that the future will be far better than that.

What You Can Do
What can you do to minimize the threat of resistant germs? The World Health Organization has provided some guidelines. First, it outlined measures we can take to reduce disease and the spread of infection. Second, it described how people can improve their use of antimicrobials.

Logically, the best way to reduce disease and its spread is to do whatever is necessary to keep healthy. What can you do to avoid getting sick?

Measures to Avoid Getting Sick

Do your best to obtain the following three things: proper nutrition, sufficient exercise, and adequate rest.
Practice personal hygiene. Authorities emphasize hand washing as the single most effective procedure to avoid getting ill and to keep from passing infection on to others.
Ensure the safety of the food you and your family eat. Be especially conscious that your hands as well as the area where meals are prepared are clean. Also, be sure that the water used to wash your hands and food is clean. Since germs flourish in food, cook meats thoroughly. Store and chill food properly.
In lands where serious disease is transmitted by flying insects, limit your nighttime or early-morning outdoor activity when these insects are most active. And regularly use protective netting.
Vaccines can help train your immune system to fight off some germs that are common where you live.
Use of Antimicrobials

Consult a health professional before buying or taking any antibiotic or antimicrobial. Direct-to-consumer promotions often benefit the seller more than the buyer.
Don't press your doctor for an antibiotic prescription. If you do, he may give you one only because he fears losing you as a patient. Colds, for example, are caused by viruses, and antibiotics do not cure colds. Taking an antibiotic when you have a virus may suppress helpful bacteria, perhaps allowing resistant ones to breed.
Don't insist on the latest medicine—it may not be the best for you and may cost you far more than is necessary.
Learn about any medication from a reliable source: What is it for? What are the possible side effects? What are its drug interactions and other factors that might make ingesting it dangerous?
If the antibiotic medication is truly appropriate, you are generally encouraged to take the full course that is prescribed, even if you feel better before you finish taking it all. The last portion helps ensure that all of the infection is gone.


Under God's righteous government, people will enjoy life without any germs that cause harm

When No Germ Will Cause HarmThe Bible prophet Isaiah long ago pointed to a superhuman government and identified its ruler. Note the prophecy, as it appears in the King James version of the Bible: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."—Isaiah 9:6, italics ours.

Who is this child, this prince, who would receive rulership? Note how he was identified even before his birth. The angel Gabriel told the virgin girl Mary: "Look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. This one will be great . . . , and there will be no end of his kingdom."—Luke 1:31-33.

When Jesus reached physical maturity, he provided evidence that he was indeed the promised Ruler of God's Kingdom government. Not only did Jesus go through the land proclaiming "the good news of the kingdom" but he also demonstrated his power to eliminate all sickness and disease. The Bible reports that "great crowds approached him, having along with them people that were lame, maimed, blind, dumb, and many otherwise, and they fairly threw them at his feet, and he cured them; so that the crowd felt amazement as they saw the dumb speaking and the lame walking and the blind seeing."—Matthew 9:35; 15:30, 31.

Yes, whatever the disease or infirmity a person suffered, Jesus cured it. He even raised to life several people who had died! (Luke 7:11-17; 8:49-56; John 11:38-44) True, those who were healed, and even those resurrected, eventually died. Still, Jesus' miracles showed what he will do in the future for people who live on earth under Kingdom rule. The Bible promises that at that time "no resident will say: 'I am sick.'"—Isaiah 33:24; Revelation 21:3, 4.

Today, as we are all painfully aware, everyone is subject to sickness and death. Germs harm millions, often proving fatal. Yet, the human body is so marvelously designed that some wonder why anybody gets sick. Medical doctor Lewis Thomas wrote of the vital role of bacteria and observed that illness comes about "like an accident." He said: "It may be that the defense mechanisms of affected patients are flawed in some special way."

Indeed, those with strong immune systems rarely, if ever, suffer from bacterial infection. Nonetheless, eventually people succumb to old age and death. The Bible says that sin inherited from the originally perfect first human, Adam, is the flaw responsible for sickness and death. "Through one man," the Bible explains, "sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."—Romans 5:12.

God, however, sent his Son to earth to provide his perfect life as a ransom to release humans from the effects of sin. (Matthew 20:28) The Bible explains: "The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23; 1 John 5:11) Under the rule of God's Kingdom, the healing effects of Christ's ransom sacrifice will be realized. Then all germs, even those that now cause disease, will do no harm to anyone.

Does it not make sense to learn about the Kingdom government promised in the Bible, which will provide solutions to mankind's problems? Jehovah's Witnesses would be delighted to help you learn more.

[iris89]

For AA on 5B

Here is a very interesting item received from a French Bible scholar on God's (YHWH's) name: [and its in English]

By Gérard Gertoux
President, Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits
September 2003
God's name, which one finds about 7000 times in the Bible under the form YHWH, possesses the unique and remarkable circumstance of not having been vocalized by nearly all translators. With this name being unpronounceable under its written form YHWH, some overconfident (or overzealous?) translators refused to confirm this paradox and preferred to vocalize it with an approximated form. Obviously, in every case, the proposed vocalizations were very rigorously criticized. A review of the past twenty centuries will allow us to appreciate the reasonings which favored or opposed the vocalization of God's name and to understand the origin of the controversy and the paradox of a name which can be written without being able to read it aloud.
BEFORE OUR COMMON ERA
The first translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, was made by Jews at the beginning of the third century before our era. However, out of superstitious respect, these translators preferred to keep the Tetragram YHWH written in Hebrew within the Greek text. There was, however, one exception: a Jewish translator who preferred to insert it under the vocalized form Iaô (Iaw), which became well known at this time because the historians Varro and Diodorus Siculus quoted it in their books (History I:94:2; Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum). In spite of these precise testimonies, the form of Iaô found limited use and was very often slandered: a paradox of magnitudes. The great prophet Jeremiah explained that the objective of the false prophets was to cause people to forget the Name (Jr 23:27), an attempt nevertheless dedicated to be defeated (Ps 44:20; 21) because God reserves his Name for his servants (Is 52:6) and naturally for those who appreciate it (Mal 3:16). Abraham, who is the father of those who have faith, took pleasure in proclaiming this Name according to Genesis 12:8 and initiated a respectable biblical custom.
Furthermore, according to the prophet Joel, it is even obligatory to proclaim this Name in order to be saved during the great and formidable day of God (Jl 2:32). According to Exodus 23:13, refusal to pronounce a god's name is a refusal to worship the god in question, so refusal to pronounce the True God's name means a refusal to worship him (Jos 23:7). In spite of these exactitudes, the translators of the Septuagint self-justified their choice not to vocalize the Name, even going so far as to modify the verses of Leviticus 24:15, transforming them into : "(Š) a man who will curse God will bring the offence, but in order to have named the name of the Lord, he would have to die absolutely, the entire assembly of Israel should stone him with stones; the alien resident as the native, in order to have named the name of the Lord, he would have to die absolutely."
Paradoxically, as noted by Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the first century, to name God was worse than to curse him (De Vita Mosis II:203-206). The Talmud points out that they had started to remove these names (Yah, Yahu) that had been stamped on jars in order to protect their holiness ('Arakin 6a; Shabbat 61b). Out of respect, the Name was to be avoided in conversation, as proven by these remarks from Jewish books written in the second century BCE: "Do not accustom into the habit of naming the Holy One" and "someone who is continually swearing and uttering the Name will not be exempt from sin" (Si 23:9,10). It was held that the privilege of pronouncing the Name was strictly reserved for use inside the Temple (Si 50:20) and that it should not be communicated to foreigners (Ws 14:21).
FROM FIRST TO FIFTH CENTURY
Flavius Josephus, who understood the priesthood of this time very well, made it clear that at the time the Romans attacked the Temple the Jews called upon the fear-inspiring name of God (The Jewish War V:43 . He wrote he had no right to reveal this name to his reader (Jewish Antiquities II:275); however, he did give information of primary importance on the very pronunciation he wanted to conceal. However, in his work The Jewish War V:235, he stated: "The high priest had his head dressed with a tiara of fine linen embroidered with a purple border, and surrounded by another crown in gold which had in relief the sacred letters; these ones are four vowels." This description is excellent; moreover, it completes the one found in Exodus 28:36-39. However, as we know, there are no vowels in Hebrew but only consonants.
Regrettably, instead of explaining this apparent abnormality, certain commentators (influenced by the form Yahweh) mislead the readers of Josephus by indicating in a note that this reading was IAUE. Now, it is obvious that the "sacred letters" indicated the Tetragram written in paleo-Hebrew, not Greek. Furthermore, in Hebrew these consonants, Y, W, and H, do serve as vowels; they are, in fact, called "mothers of reading" (matres lectionis). The writings of Qumrân show that in the first century Y used as a vowel served only to indicate the sounds I and É, W served only for the sounds Ô and U, and a final H served for the sound A. These equivalences may be verified in thousands of words.
Additionally, the H was used as a vowel only at the end of words, never within them. So, to read the name YHWH as four vowels would be IHUA, that is IEUA, because between two vowels the H is heard as a slight E. Eusebius quoted a writer of great antiquity (before 1200 BCE?) called Sanchuniathon who spoke about the Jews in chapter four of his work entitled Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos translated this work into Greek at the beginning of our era, and Porphyry was familiar with it. Sanchuniathon maintained that he got his information from Ieroubal the priest of IÉÜÔ (Ieuw), that is the Jerubbaal found in Judges 7:1. According to Judges 7:1, Jerubbaal was the name of Judge Gideon who was a priest of Jehovah (Jg 6:26; 8:27), probably written IÉÜÔA (Ieuwa) in Greek.
Irenaeus of Lyons believed that the word IAÔ (Iaw in Greek, [Iah] in Latin) meant "Lord" in primitive Hebrew (Against Heresies II:24:2), and he esteemed that the use of this Hebrew word IAÔ to denote the Name of the unknown Father was intended to impress gullible minds in worship of mysteries (Against Heresies I:21:3). Furthermore, the Greek concept of an anonymous god, mainly supported by Plato, being mixed in with the Hebrew concept of the God with a personal name, engendered absolutely contradictory assertions. So, Clement of Alexandria wrote in his book (Stromateon V:34:5) that the Tetragram was pronounced Iaoue while writing and then later that God was without form and nameless (StromateonV:81:6).
In the same way, Philo a Jewish philosopher of the first century had good biblical knowledge and knew that the Tetragram was the divine name pronounced inside the temple, since he related: "there was a gold plaque shaped in a ring and bearing four engraved characters of a name which had the right to hear and to pronounce in the holy place those ones whose ears and tongue have been purified by wisdom, and nobody else and absolutely nowhere else" (De Vita Mosis II:114-132). However, in the same work, paradoxically, he explains, commenting on Exodus 3:14 from the LXX translation, that God has no name of his own (De Vita Mosis I:75).
The Christian translators (of heathen origin) not understanding Hebrew exchanged the Tetragram with Lord; Marcion in 140 C.E. even modified the expression "Let your Name be sanctified" into "Let your spirit be sanctified." On the other hand, some Christians (of Jewish origin) such as Symmachus kept the Tetragram written in Hebrew inside the Greek text (in 165). Eusebius clarified that Symmachus was an Ebionite, that is a Judeo-Christian, and that he had drafted a comment on Matthew's book (Ecclesiastical History VI:17). However, the Judeo-Christians were completely rejected after 135 of our era by the "Christians" as Jewish heretics.
Since the whole of translations were made according to the Septuagint, many readers ignored the problem of the vocalization of the Name. However, Jerome, who realized the first Latin translation directly from the Hebrew text, noted in his commentary on Psalm 8:2: "The name of the Lord in Hebrew has four letters, Yod He Waw He, which is the proper name of God which some people through ignorance, write P I P I (instead of h w h y) in Greek and which can be pronounced Yaho." Augustine of Hippo wrote around 400 that "Varro was rightly writing that the Jews worship the god Jupiter" (De consensu evangelistarum I:22). His remark proves that he probably confused the name of Jupiter (Ioue) with the Hebrew name of God Iaô, or perhaps Ioua.
FROM SIXTH TO ELEVENTH CENTURY
Some oriental Christians, due to their knowledge of the Hebraic language, prevented a complete disappearance of the name. Thus, Severi of Antioch used the form IÔA (Iwa) in a series of comments in chapter eight of John's gospel (Jn 8:5 , pointing out that it was God's name in Hebrew, a name that one finds also in the front pages of a codex of 6th century (Coislinianus) to assign the Invisible or the Unspeakable. It is interesting to note that Matthew's gospel in Hebrew was found in a work dated from the 6th to the 9th centuries (Nestor's book) and was attributed to the priest Nestorius, in which God's name appears under the Hebraic shape "The Name" (Hashem) instead of the usual "Lord." In commenting on a work of Severi of Antioch, the famous scholar James of Edesse made clear around 675 in a technical comment that the copyists of the Septuagint (of his time) were divided over whether to write the divine name Adonay and keep it within the Greek text in the form P I P I (corresponding in fact to the Hebrew name YHYH as he mentioned) or to translate it as Kurios and write it in the margin of the manuscript.
These quotations are exceptional, however, because even the famous translator Albinus Alcuini specified that although God's name was written Jod He Vau Heth, it was read Lord because this name was ineffable. Things began to change when translators again made translations directly from Hebrew and not from a translation. The first was doubtless the famous Karaite Yefet ben Eli who translated the Bible into Arabic. In copies of this translation (made around 960), one finds at times the Tetragram vocalized Yahwah (or Yahuwah), a normal transcription of the Hebrew shape Yehwah of this time (or Yahowah whom one finds in some codices within Babylonian punctuation) because in Arabic there are only three sounds: â, î, and û. The shape Yahuwah was apparently understood Yah Huwa "Oh He" in Arabic because it seems so in a manuscript dated 10th century.
Some famous imams, such as Abu-l-Qâsim-al-Junayd who died in 910 and now known as Fahr ad-Din Râzî, while knowing that God had 99 beautiful names explained that the supreme name (ism-al-a'zam) of God was Yâ Huwa not Allah. A follower of al-Junayd, the Soufi Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallâj (857-922), asserted: "Here are the words of which sense seemed ambiguous. Know that temples hold by His Yâ-Huwah and that bodies are being moved by His Yâ-Sîn. Now Hû and Sîn are two roads which end into the knowledge of the original point." Yâ-Sîn is a reference to the Sura 36 and Yâ-huwah wrote y'hwh in Arabic and makes reference to the Hebrew Tetragram. Al-Hallâj was rejected as a madman by his teacher al-Junayd and was executed in Bagdad as a heretic.
IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY
The works of two Jewish scholars marked a decisive bend in the vocalization of God's name. In order to contend with influences of philosophy, Gnosticism, mystical, and even astrological beliefs which became increasingly influential [mainly due to the third century work entitled Sepher Yetsirah (Book of Forming) which speculated on the letters of the divine names], Maimonides, a Jewish scholar and famous talmudist, put forward a whole new definition of Judaism. His reasoning centered on the Name of God, the Tetragram, which was explained in his book entitled The Guide of the Perplexed, written in 1190. There he exposed the following powerful reasoning: the God of the philosophers did not require worship only polite acknowledgement of his existence since it would be impossible to establish relations with a nameless God (Elohim).
Then he proved that the Tetragram YHWH is the personal name of God, that is to say the name distinctly read (Shem hamephorash), which is different from all the other names such as Adonay, Shadday, Elohim (which are only divine titles having an etymology) because the Tetragram has no etymology. Maimonides knew well the problem of the pronunciation since Jewish tradition stated that it had been lost. On the other hand, he also knew that some Jews believed in the almost magical influence of the letters or the precise pronunciation of divine names, but he warned his readers against such practices as being pure invention or foolishness. The remarkable aspect of his argumentation lies in the fact that he managed to avoid controversy on such a sensitive subject.
He asserted that in fact it was only true worship which had been lost and not the authentic pronunciation of the Tetragram, since this was still possible according to its letters. To support this basic idea (true worship is more important than correct pronunciation), he quoted Sotah 38a to prove that the name is the essence of God and that is the reason it should not be misused; then he quoted Zechariah 14:9 to prove the oneness of this name and also Sifre Numbers 6:23-27 to show that the priests were obliged to bless by this name only. Then, to prove that pronunciation of the Name did not pose any problem in the past and that it had no magical aspect, he quoted Qiddushin 71a, which said that this name was passed on by certain rabbis to their sons.
Also, according to Yoma 39b, this pronunciation was widely used before the priesthood of Simon the Just, so proving the insignificance of a magical concept; at this time, the Name was used for its spiritual, not supernatural, aspect. Maimonides insisted on the fact that what was necessary to find was the spirituality connected to this Name and not the exact pronunciation. In order to demonstrate this important idea of understanding the sense and not the sound conveyed by this name, he quoted a relevant example. Exodus 6:3 indicates that before Moses the Name was not known. Naturally, this refers to the exact meaning of the Name and not its pronunciation because it would be unreasonable to believe that a correct pronunciation would have suddenly been able to incite the Israelites to action unless the pronunciation had magical power, a supposition disproved by subsequent events.
It is interesting to observe that Judah Halevi, another Jewish scholar, put forward almost the same arguments in his book The Kuzari published some years before in 1140. He wrote that the main difference between the God of Abraham and the God of Aristotle was the Tetragram. He proved also that this name was the personal name of God and that it meant "He will be with you." To show once again that it was the meaning of this name which was important and not the pronunciation, he quoted Exodus 5:2 where Pharaoh asked to know the Name, not the pronunciation which he used, and the authority of this Name. He pointed out that the letters of the Tetragram have the remarkable property of being matres lectionis, that is the vowels associated with other consonants, much as the spirit is associated with the body and makes it live (Kuzari IV:1-16). Judah Halevi specified in his work that the yod (Y) served as vowel I, the waw (W) served as O, and that the he (H) and the aleph (') served as A. According to these rudimentary indications, the name YHWH could be read I-H-O-A "according to its letters" (H is never used as vowel inside words; in that exceptional case, the letter aleph is preferred). A French erudite, Antoine Fabre d'Olivet, explained that the best pronunciation of the divine Name according to its letters was Ihôah, and when he began to translate the Bible (Genesis, chapters I to X), he systematically used the name Ihôah.
The expression pronounced "according to its letters" which Maimonides used is strictly exact, only in Hebrew (vowel letters as pointed out by Judah Halevi). Joachim of Flora gave a Greek transliteration of the Tetragram I-E-U-E in his work entitled Expositio in Apocalypsim that he finished in 1195. He also used the expression "Adonay IEUE tetragramaton nomen" in another book entitled Liber Figurarum. The vocalization of the Tetragram was improved by Pope Innocent III in one of his sermons written around 1200. Indeed, he noticed that the Hebrew letters of the Tetragram Ioth, Eth, Vau (that is Y, H, W) were used as vowels and that the name IESUS had exactly the same vowels I, E, and U as the divine name. He also drew a parallel between the name written IEVE, pronounced Adonai, and the name written IHS but pronounced IESUS. These remarks on the Name concerned only a circle very restricted by medieval intellectuals.
Furthermore, Pope Innocent III (1160-1216) did not make known in the Catholic world that God's name was Ieue and not Lord; the Hebrew scholar Judah Hallevi (1075-1141) did not denounce the Jewish superstition to replace the name Ihôa by the substitute Adonay; the Soufi al-Hallâj (857-922) did not reveal in the Moslem world that Yâhuwa was the proper noun of Allah, etc.
FROM THIRTEEN TO FIFTEENTH CENTURY

See part two for AA on 5B

[iris89]

Part two of 5B for AA

From the thirteenth century, knowledge of the Hebrew language would progress considerably, involving notably the role of matres lectionis. For example, the famous scholar Roger Bacon wrote in his Hebraic grammar that in Hebrew there are six vowels "aleph, he, vav, heth, iod, ain" close to the usual Masoretic vowel-points. (The French erudite Fabre d'Olivet also explained in his Hebrew grammar the following equivalence: aleph = â, he = è, heth = é, waw = ô/ u, yod = î, aïn = wo).
Raymond Martini, a Spanish monk, excellent Hebrew scholar, and a very good connoisseur of Talmud, impressed by the arguments of Maimonides, was involved in controversy with the Jews in his book Pugio fidei in 1278 on the fact that God's name could be pronounced; he used the form Yohoua. However, in 1292, his pupil Arnauldus of Villenueva, keen on Cabal, returned to the dumb (speechless) form of IHVH. On the other hand, Porchetus de Salvaticis, an admirer of Raymond Martini, enriched his arguments and used several times the form Yohouah in his book Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos in 1303. However, the convert Abner of Burgos used (between 1330 and 1340) the form Yehabe in his book Mostrador de Justicia. Another convert, Pablo of Burgos preferred the dumb structure YHBH (in 1390).
The first scholar who gave exactly and clearly the reasons of his choices of vocalization was cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. In 1428, he dedicated moreover his first sermon on John 1:1 in which he explained, based on rabbi Moyses's works, the various names of God (Adonai, Jah, Sabaoth, Schaddai, etc.) and the meaning of the Tetragram, which he vocalized Iehoua. In this sermon, he began to develop the idea that Jesus was the "speakable" element (the Word) of the "unspeakable (ineffable)" God. He explained in another sermon, written around 1440, that the name of Jesus means "savior," pronounced Ihesua in Hebrew, and this name "Savior" is also the Word of God. He indicated that the unspeakable name is Ihehoua in Hebrew.
In two other sermons, written in 1441, he pursued the connection between the unspeakable Greek Tetragram, spelled Iot, He, Vau, He, and the "speakable" name of Ihesus which he often wrote Ihûs. Then, in a sermon written in 1445, he explained in detail the grammatical reasons permitting a link between these two names. God's name is the Greek Tetragram which is spelled in Hebrew Ioth, He, Vau, He; these four letters serve as vowels, corresponding to I, E, O, A in Greek because in this language there is no specific vowel for the sound OU (the letter U in Greek is pronounced as the French Ü). So, in Greek, the transcription IEOUA would be more exact and would better reflect the OU sound of the Hebrew name I-e-ou-a, becoming in Latin Iehova or Ihehova, because the letter H is inaudible and the vowel U also serves as a consonant (V).
He noted finally that the Hebraic form IESUA of the name "Jesus" is distinguished from the divine name only by a holy letter "s" (shin in Hebrew) which is interpreted as the "elocution" or the Word of God, also the salvation of God. He would continue this parallel between God's name (Ieoua) and the name of Jesus (Iesoua) in yet another sermon. However, towards the end of his life, he wrote several important works (De Possest in 1460, Non Aliud in 1462, etc.), to explain the purely symbolic character of God's name which had all names and so none in particular. Contrary to his books, his sermons were not widely diffused.
In 1474, Marsilio Ficino proposed the name Hiehouahi in his book De Liber Christiana Religione XXX. Johannes Wessel Gansfort, the spiritual father of Luther, preferred, around 1480, to vocalize God's name Iohauah in his work Oratione III:3:11-12. However, once more, the influence of the Christian Cabal engendered a big mess in the vocalization of God's name under the excuse of making improvements!
For example, by 1488, Paulus de Heredia suggested in his Epistle of Secrets vocalizing the Tetragram in Yehauue because its presumed Hebraic meaning was, according to him, "He will make be" or "He will generate" (future piel of the verb to be). John Reuchlin proposed in 1494 in his De Verbo Mirifico to move closer to the Latin Tetragram IHVH towards the name of Jesus which he presumed to be written IHSVH (the link with the Greek name Iesue which he supported supposes Ieue as the vocalization of God's name). John Pico della Mirandola in his Disputianum Adversus Astrologos (in 1496) fustigated the heathens who used the name Jupiter for plagiarizing God's name (Jove father). Friend of Mirandole, Agostino Justiniani clarified in 1516 in his translation of the Psalms that the Tetragram was pronounced as Jova (or Ioua).
IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, this situation had become extremely vague. The translator Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples indicated in 1509 in his comments on the Psalm LXXII that the Hebrew Tetragram was pronounced as it was written, that is in Latin I-He-U-He or Ihevhe (while noticing that the Hebrew name of Jesus was Ihesvha and concluding it should have been Ihesvhe). When he published in 1514 Nicholas of Cusa's sermons, he used instead the shape Iehova, according to the original manuscripts. In 1516 in Justiniani's Bible, one could read from the shape Ioua, etc.
In order to clear up the variants of pronunciation of the Tetragram, Pietro Galatino dedicated a good part of his work entitled De Arcanis Catholice Ueritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth), published in 1518, to explain the (Hebraic) reasons for this pronunciation. First, he quoted profusely from the book of Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, especially chapters 60-64 of the first part, as a reminder that the Tetragram is the proper name of God and that it can be pronounced according to its letters. However, he demonstrated that the pronunciation Ioua, accepted in his time, was inaccurate, and he gave the reasons why. He explained, for example, that the proper name Iuda, written hdwy (YWDH), was an abbreviation of the name Iehuda written hdwhy (YHWDH).
All Hebrew proper names beginning in YHW- [why] are moreover always vocalized Ieh-. Consequently, if the Tetragram were really pronounced Ioua, it would have been written in Hebrew hWy (YWH), which was never the case. So, because the Tetragram is written hwhy (YHWH), one should hear the letter H inside the Name. He concluded that, because this name is pronounced according to its letters, the best transcription was the form I-eh-ou-a (Iehoua) rather than the form I-ou-a used, for example, by Agostino Justiniani, a friend of Pico della Mirandola, in his polyglot translation of Psalms published in 1516. If Galatino had transcribed the Masoretic form directly, he would have obtained Yehouah and not Iehoua.
In 1526, Luther wrote in a sermon on Jeremiah 23:1-8: "This name Iehouah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God." He will write in 1543, with characteristic frankness: "That they [the Jews] now allege the name Iehouah to be unpronounceable, they do not know what they are talking about (...) if it can be written with pen and ink, why should it not be spoken, which is much better than being written with pen and ink? Why do they not also call it unwriteable, unreadable or unthinkable? All things considered, there is something foul."
However, when he published in 1534 his complete translation of the Bible based on the original languages, he did not use God's name that he knew well, but preferred to use the substitute HERR (Lord). Another example of this vacillating attitude is John Calvin. In most of his books and sermons, he regularly encouraged his readers not to use God's name! For example in 1555 in his comment on Deuteronomy 5:11, he condemned the use of God's name. However, a few years before, in 1535, he prefaced Olivetan's Bible which used the name Iehouah, and a few years later in 1563 when he published his comments on the five books of Moses, he systematically used the form Iehoua, including it in the biblical text, and he denounced in his comment on Exodus 6:3 the Jewish superstition which lead to replacing Iehouæ with Adonaï. The excellent Hebrew scholar Sebastian Münster used the name Iehova in his Hebraic grammar (in 1526), a name which he introduced moreover into his Latin translation of the Bible in 1534.
Tyndale was the first to introduce it in several places into his English translation in 1530. Servetus in his Trinitatis Erroribus (in 1531) strongly defended the shape Iehouah against the shape Yehauue, "He will make to be," because the name Iehouah is close to the Hebrew theophoric name Iesua (Jesus). Cardinal Giacoma de vio Cajetan used it constantly in his comments on the Pentateuch in 1531. The translator Pierre Robert Olivétan introduced it in some places of his French translation in 1535, clarifying in the foreword (Apology of the translator) that this vocalization Iehouah expressed the sound of the letter H better than Ioua. François Vatable used it in his translation in 1545. The first who systematically used the name Iehouah was certainly the German scholar Martin Bucer in his Latin translation of Psalms in 1547; then Robert Estienne used it in all the Bible in 1557, as did also the Spanish translator Casiodoro de Reina in 1569.
The shape Iehouah was widely used; however, there were some exceptions. The Italian translator Antonio Brucioli preferred the shape Ieova in 1541; the French translator Sébastien Casteillon preferred the shape Ioua in 1555, clarifying in a comment on Matthew 1:21 that if the Latin name of Jesus was Josue, this theophoric name could be improved into Iosua involving the vocalization Ioua, effectively close to Ioue (Jupiter). He restored the argument by clarifying that if the heathens had used by chance God's name, then with stronger reason, Christians had reason to do so. The translator Benito Arias Montano, afraid of favoring a name of heathen origin, preferred to use systematically the name IA in his translation of Psalms in 1574. The name Iehouah seemed to have won in part and to be necessarily characterized in the Bible; however, a large-scale attack against this vocalization was going to begin towards the end of the sixteenth century.
The first antagonist was Archbishop Gilbert Genebrard, who, in his book written in 1568 to defend the Trinity, dedicated several pages to the name in an effort to refute S. Casteillon, P. Galatin, S. Pagnin, and others. First of all, he rejected Chateillon's Ioua using Saint Augustine's explanation, via Varro, that the Jews had worshiped Ioue (Jupiter!), and, therefore, the use of Ioua was a return to paganism. In the foreword to his commentary on Psalms, he went so far as to state that the name Ioua was barbarian, fictitious, and irreligious. Concerning the writings of Clement of Alexandria ("Iaou"), Jerome ("Iaho") and Theodoret ("Iabe"), he considered these as mere variations of Ioue, and these testimonies appeared unreliable because, at the time they were written, the Jews had not pronounced the Name for several centuries. Lastly, he claimed that P. Galatin (as well as S. Pagnin), who had used the form "Iehoua," had not accounted for the theological meaning "He is" when searching for the right pronunciation.
Indeed, since the translation of the Septuagint, it was known that the definition of the divine Name was essentially "He is." Genebrard tried to confirm this definition due to his knowledge of the Hebrew language. So, since in Exodus 3:14 God calls himself "I am," (in Hebrew Ehie), one should say, when speaking about God, "He is," that is in Hebrew Iihie. Grammatically, the form Iihie was likely derived from a more archaic form Iehue, suggested in 1550 by Luigi Lippomano. Genebrard then pointed out that Abbot Joachim of Flora used this more exact form ("Ieue") in his book on the Apocalypse. Genebrard's explanation, although unable to convince, impressed many because of its intellectual approach, and, during the century that followed, Bible commentators often noted this form Iehue (or Iiheue) when using the more accepted Iehoua.
However, in spite of the masterly presentation, it remained theoretic because of lack of early proof (later, to mitigate this discrepancy, Protestant theologians re-examined the historical evidence of the first centuries). Genebrard's major contribution was to introduce the theological meaning of the Name into the search for its pronunciation, a process that provoked a profusion of new pronunciations due to the ever increasing knowledge of the Hebrew language and its history. Furthermore, Cardinal Robert Bellarmin asserted in 1578 that the form Iehoua was erroneous because it had the vowels e, o, a, of the qere Adonay (a, o, a becoming e, o, a for grammatical reasons!)
FROM SEVENTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURY
Jan Drusius published in 1603 a long article dedicated to the pronunciation of the Name. His main arguments were that the Masoretic punctuation of the Tetragram could not be used as a basis for pronouncing the Name because it was a qere; so the form Iehovih, resulting from the qere elohim, would be nonsense. He thus concluded that Iehovah was also a barbarism. He repeated the same arguments as Genebrard against Ioua and then reminded his audience that according to the best grammarians of his time the expression "He is" should be pronounced Ieheve. This form is found in Johannes Merceri's Thesaurus and that of Santes Pagnino under the Hebrew form YeHeWeH (West Aramaic Peal imperfect) meaning "He will be" which is now pronounced YiHWeH.
He then theorized, using a few examples that the form Ieheve (or Iihveh) resulted from an archaic Iahave (or Iahveh), and, in conclusion, he noted that this form Iahave was identical to the Samaritan pronunciation Iave given by Theodoret. Louis Cappel dedicated almost one hundred pages to the pronunciation of the Name in one of his articles published in 1650. As well as resuming many of Drusius' arguments, he explained a few new ideas. He maintained that the first syllable was certainly Iah- because many names had lost their initial vowel, for example, Nabô had become Nebô, but he noted that the most ancient witnesses (hence the most reliable) usually used Iaô. He preferred Iahuoh to Iahave or Iahue.
However, the form Iahue eventually took over for two important reasons; first of all, it retained the first syllable Ia- as determined by the most ancient sources (it was also similar to the versions provided by Epiphanius, Theodoret, and Clement of Alexandria), and, above all, it was close to a grammatical form beginning with Ya-, meaning "He will cause to be" or "He will make exist," first suggested by Johannes Leclerc around 1700. This form would be a hypothetical imperfect hiphil, vocalized YaHaYeH, resulting from an archaic [?] YaHaWeH. The cabalistic approach was in fact more "scientific" (!) because it was based on the probable imperfect piel form YeHaWeH, meaning "He will make to be" or "He will cause to become." This very complicated explanation intended to justify the form Yahweh disconcerted some translators who had used the "simplistic" Iehoua.
Some nostalgic translators returned to a form "according to its letters," so the German translator Johann Babor used Ihoua (in 1805), the French translator Antoine Fabre d'Olivet used Ihoah (in 1823), the Latin translator Augustine Crampon used Jova (in 1856), etc.; however, the "scientific" shape Yahweh began to appear in force in the Bible towards the end of nineteenth century and competed with the "religious" shape Iehoua. For example, the agnostic translator Eugène Ledrain insisted (in 1879) on using the shape Yahweh because this name was in agreement with the meaning "He causes to be" or "He causes to become," a name which he systematically used in his translation finished in 1899. Other translators breached the barrier and used the name Yahweh as those of Emphasized Bible (187 , Rodwell (1881), Addis Documents of the Hexateuch (1893), Banks J.S (1895), Rotherdam (1897), Leidse Vertaling (1899), etc.
In front of this growing mess, the religious leaders decided to produce a qualitative translation directly from the masoretic text which would benefit most from all of the projections acquired in the study of languages. The first to initiate the banns (proclamations?) was the French Jewish translator who, by leaning on the works of the famous German grammarian Gesenius, chose systematically to return the Tetragram to Iehovah (1856). Then the Russian orthodox translator also systematically chose to render the Tetragram with Jehovah (1867), as did the American Protestant translators (1901), and finally the French Catholic translators who made the same choice (1904). This choice is surprising for two reasons. First of all, it was unanimous in spite of serious religious differences, and then it was decided in a very controversial context where Yahweh seemed to prevail.
IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY
One could have been led to believe that with the unanimous weight of religious authorities, the name Jehovah was going to be necessary, but such was not the case. To the contrary, religious authorities, and once more unanimously, utterly denied their first choice. It seems, by observing the histories of the various choices, that scientific arguments were not the only ones in play. Indeed, one can determine that the first translators who introduced the name Jehovah into the Bible were either Walden's sympathizers, such as François Vatable or Pierre Robert Olivétan, or they were anti-Trinitarian proponents, such as Michel Servetus or Sébastien Casteillon.
The first who attacked violently the name Jehovah were Catholic theologians as the archbishop Gilbert Génébrard or the cardinal Robert Bellarmin. When Walden's movement was completely absorbed by the Protestant reform, Catholic authorities started again in addressing this name Jehovah, which was this time violently attacked by Protestant theologians, as Jan Drusius or Louis Cappel. Finally, when the Watch Tower, magazine of the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1879, gradually drew attention to the use of this name, numerous translators wished to distance themselves from this movement. The descent became even more important when these students of the Bible took the Jehovah's Witnesses' name in 1931.
In the end of the twentieth century, the majority of translators have abandoned the form of Jehovah in their translations; it is a thorn to note that the shape Yahweh, which was used to eliminate it, is today considered absurd by the grammarians because all the arguments which served to support it are false. Indeed, the Greek witnesses in Iaô correspond to the Trigram YHW and not to the Tetragram YHWH as widely showed by the Elephantine letters. The dropping of the first vowel (a becoming e) cannot be invoked because this change took place in the third century before our era, and the Septuagint, which kept track of this phenomenon, did not preserve any theophoric names (without exception) beginning with Ia-. Finally, the causative shape of the verb to be, "He causes to be" or "He causes to become," invented to justify a verbal shape beginning with Yah-, has never existed and will never exist.

See part 3 of 5B for AA

[iris89]

Part 3 of 5B for AA

Furthermore, this form is trebly absurd, as the translators Pirot and Clamer point out. First of all, the metaphysical notion o***od "who is" or "who causes to be" is too much abstracted with regard to the time when it is supposed to appear (the time of Moses) and corresponds better with the philosophic thinking of the Greeks. On the other hand, the notion o***od who "will be" with his people is a very concrete idea which the Talmud often developed and is in agreement with the biblical context. Secondly, the notion o***od who "causes to be" would have to be expressed, of necessity, by the shape yehaweh (future piel in Hebrew). Finally, in Exodus 3:14, as mentioned in a note in the Jerusalem Bible, the grammatical shape used without a shadow of a doubt is a future shape qal (which one can translate by "I shall be," therefore "He will be").
It is amusing to note that the form of Yahweh, which was supported by some of the most brilliant theologians, the most competent grammarians, the most eminent Biblicists, the most prestigious dictionaries, is known finally to be inaccurate. The king Solomon, who is presented as having received God's wisdom, nonetheless never quoted the Tetragram in his famous book called Ecclesiastes but mysteriously used a rare grammatical shape yhw' for yhwh (Qo 11:3), which appears only once in all the Bible. At the height of the irony, Biblicists translate this shape into "it will be" (Bible of the King James, Darby, etc.), which is the elementary meaning of the Tetragram. The translators of the Septuagint themselves translated this shape into "He will be" (estai). Furthermore, the Hebrew vocalization of this word, kept by the Masoretes, is "Yehou," which constitutes the natural vocalization of the Tetragram.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Discourse on Mary [Mother of Jesus] and Miriam [Sister of Moses]:

INTRODUCTION:

It is interesting to note that both the name Mary and the name Miriam are actually the same name in two different languages. According to the Wikipedia, <<" According to the New Testament, Mary (Judeo-Aramaic ???? Maryam "Bitter"; Septuagint Greek ?a??aµ, Mariam, ?a??a, Maria; Assyrian: Mat Maryam), was the mother of Jesus of Nazareth and at the time of his conception was the betrothed wife of Joseph.">> [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]. Matthew 1:18-20 says, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and Luke 1:35, says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (AV); and the Quran at Sura 3:47, says, "She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is." (Bible knockoff the Quran as translated into English by M.H. Shakir and published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc.).

In the Bible there are two important Mary's or Miriam's mentioned. The first is Miriam (Mary) the sister of Moses (Mosche) mentioned often in the Torah, and the second is Mary (Miriam) Mother of Jesus (Yeshua), previously mentioned.

We will now deal with these two important Bible women on a timeline basis.

MIRIAM (MARY) SISTER OF MOSES (MOSCHE):

Miriam (Mary) sister of Moses (Mosche) lived around 1,500 BCE and is often mentioned in the Bible, especially in the five books of the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. . Miriam (Mary), was the daughter of Amram and his wife Jochebed, both of the tribe of Levi; sister of Moses and Aaron, per Numbers 26:59, "And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.

Though not specifically named in the account, she was undoubtedly the one termed "his sister" who watched to see what would become of the infant Moses as he lay in an ark placed among the reeds of the river Nile per Exodus 2:3-4, "And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. 4 And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him." (AV). And Exodus 2:5-10, gives an account of what happened to the babe, Moses (Mosche), "And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. 6 And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children. 7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? 8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother. 9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water." (AV).

Later in her life, in her position as prophetess, "Miriam (Mary) the prophetess" led the women of Israel in joyful tambourine playing and in dancing. Responding to the song led by Moses, Miriam sang: "Sing to Jehovah, for he has become highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has pitched into the sea." This was recorded at Exodus 15:1 and 20-21, "Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea." And, "And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea." (AV).

MARY (MIRIAM) MOTHER OF JESUS (YESHUA) , THE SON OF GOD (YHWH):

Mary (Miriam), the mother of our savior Jesus (Yeshua) lived in the First Century of our Common Era approximately 1,500 years after the sister of Moses (Mosche), Miriam (Mary). She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary's husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter's husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. ?Nu ?xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." [source - M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. III, page 774, 1881]. It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli." At Luke 3:23, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (AV).

Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." Per Romans 1:3-4, "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" (AV). Thus, Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David's throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."; "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (AV).

Now, If tradition is correct, Heli's wife, the mother of Mary, was Anna, whose sister had a daughter named Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptizer. This tradition would make Elizabeth the cousin of Mary. That Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was "from the daughters of Aaron" of the tribe of Levi, the Scriptures themselves state, as shown by Luke 1:5 & 36, "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth." And "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." (AV).

MARY'S (MIRIAM'S) VISIT BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL:

About the end of 3 B.C.E., the angel Gabriel was sent by God to the virgin girl Mary in the town of Nazareth. What then took place as recorded at Luke 1:26-35, "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (AV).

MARY'S (MIRIAM'S) GIVES BIRTH TO JESUS (YESHUA) THE SON OF GOD (YHWH):

Now, when it came to Joseph's notice (likely through disclosure of the matter to him by Mary) that she was pregnant, he intended to divorce her secretly rather than expose her to public shame. But did not per Matthew 1:18-25, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (AV).

As this drama continued to unfold, the decree of Caesar Augustus, compelling everyone to register in the town of his origin, proved providential in its timing, for the prophecy concerning Jesus' birthplace had to be fulfilled per Micah 5:2, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (AV). Now, Joseph took Mary, who was "heavy with child," on the strenuous journey of about 150 km (93 mi) from their home in Nazareth in the N to Bethlehem in the S. Because there was no place for them in the lodging room, the birth of the child took place under most humble conditions, with the newborn babe being laid in a manger. This occurred probably about October 1 of the year 2 B.C.E.

MANY MISCONCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO MARY (MARIAM) HELD BY VARIOUS RELIGIONS & CONCLUSION:

Let's briefly look at some misconceptions held with respect to Mary (Mariam) as shown by the titles given to her. "Mary's most common titles include The Blessed Virgin Mary or Our Lady (Notre Dame, Nuestra Señora, Madonna). The Orthodox Church refers frequently to Mary as Theotokos, a title recognized at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Theotokos is often translated into English as the Mother of God or more literally as Godbearer or Birthgiver of God. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Of course, the Bible, the word of God (YHWH) assigns none of these titles to her so all are usurps of God's (YHWH's) right to assign titles. No wonder so many are confused as to just who Mary (Miriam) really is. We should NOT go beyond what the Bible whose author is God (YHWH) says, but certain churches, most notably the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church (eastern church) do.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Worshippers of False God(s) Through The Ages Always React In Insanely Irrational Ways:

INTRODUCTION:

Since 1 Kings 18:25-29, "And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Now days the worshippers of the old middle eastern Moon god, "Allah/Hubal al'iah/Baal," now days want cartoonist put to death for drawing a cartoon they do not like. Let's look at the facts.

THE CURRENT WORLD:

Which world are we living in that people get killed, embassies bombed, riots the world over for the cartoon on the right hand side? Let's look at the writing of another on the subject.

I have to say in all seriousness the more I read the views of Muslims protesting cartoons the more shocked I become, of all the nonsense being perpetrated on the world by Muslims, there has not been one organized protest against the suicide bombings outside of the west, [Muslims miss the point entirely - just because your feelings get hurt by (and let me emphasize this) INK ON PAPER doesn't mean you get to ban free speech, this contradicts any and every constitution in Europe].

If you don't like the cartoons, then change your actions so the cartoons have no point, this is the point of satire, if the satire is a lie, you can sue for libel, go through the proper channels and prove the satire false, why for the love of God don't Muslims prove the cartoons are libelous?

The reason many and I reiterate MANY find the cartoons NON OFFENSIVE, are they expose and satirize precisely what Muslims are doing in Iraq, they are bombing people, ergo prophet is drawn with a bomb.

If this weren't true, then the cartoons would miss the mark.

Besides, these cartoons were already published in September, 2005 in Denmark - and a few weeks later IN EGYPT (which we all know is a Muslim nation) and there were no riots.

The riots started when a frustrated Danish imam who wants to prove how important he is called his friends and began circulating the cartoons - plus new ones that THEY added. Their additions also "defamed" Mohammed - even though one is already proven to be o***uy at a *** contest in France- NOTHING to do with Mohammed at all, except in the mind of the imams-- which means that THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DEFAMING MOHAMMED.[source - an anonymous author]

THE DISTORTION OF REALITY AND COMMON SENSE BY WORSHIPPERS OF FALSE GODS:

Here in their own words of one Muslim URL.

Asslam-o-alaikum!!! (Muslims). On the behalf of Muslim Ummah, We ********.com staff, strongly condemns the publishing of blasphemous sketches of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w) in Danish, Norwegian, Italian and French newspapers. It is the supreme responsibility of every Muslim to respect for the sanctity and dignity of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w); and who so ever pass derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w); IS LIABLE TO DEATH. We record our statement to the concerned Governments that they SHOULD MAKE THOSE CULPRITS SENTENCE TO DEATH. Moreover we strongly appeal from the Muslim Ummah to boycott socially and economically from such affiliated countries.

CONCLUSION:

Now as can be clearly seen worship of false god(s); to wit, the old middle eastern Moon god, "Allah/Hubal al'iah/Baal," have not changed in three thousand years. Whereas, the worshipers of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham do not act insanely irrational over trivia's. In fact Islam is even warring on itself as shown by the following:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunnis and Shiites traded bombings and mortar fire against mainly religious targets in Baghdad well into the night Tuesday, killing at least 68 people a day after authorities lifted a curfew that had briefly calmed a series of sectarian reprisal attacks. At least six of Tuesday's attacks hit clearly religious targets, concluding with a car bombing after sundown at the Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood that killed 23 and wounded 55. [source - Associated Press on 02/28/2006 AP - at 5:00 pm]

[iris89]

For AA for 5A

Biblical Chronology
Vol. 7, No. 7
July, 1995
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1995
Daniel: Historical & Chronological Comments (VIII)
by James B. Jordan
16. The End of the Seventy Years ( Daniel 9:1-2)
In the first year of Darius/Cyrus, Daniel observed that the 70 years of Jeremiah 25 had come to an end. These were years of the "desolations (plural) of Jerusalem." Accordingly, Daniel confessed the sins of the people, asking by implication that Jerusalem now be restored.
These verses in Daniel 9 mean that the first year of Cyrus was the 71st year. This would be in the fourth quarter of 538 bc. Now, if we date the beginning of these 70 years in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, the fourth quarter of 605 bc, as is usually done on the basis of Jeremiah 25, then we come up short by three years. If we begin in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, the fourth quarter of 606 bc, on the basis of Daniel 1, then we come up short by two years. If we make the first year of Cyrus the same as the 70th year, which means the 70 years and the 70 weeks of years overlap by one year, then we are still off by one year.
There are three ways of resolving this difficulty. One is to say that the 70 years are only a round number. This is hardly satisfactory. The second, the traditional one, is to say that Darius the Mede ruled for two years and Cyrus only issued his decree in the third year after Babylon fell, in 536 bc. As we have seen, that hypothesis is no longer tenable.
The best explanation is that the 70 years of desolations begin with the death of Josiah, the last Godly king. This was in 608 bc, so that the first year of Jehoiakim began in the fall of that year. The year beginning then (which was mostly in 607 bc) would be the first of the 70 years.
If we go back to Jeremiah 25, we find that that prophet does not say that the 70 years begin with Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, he says that the nations will serve Babylon for 70 years. According to Jeremiah 29:10, the 70 years are "for Babylon." Jeremiah 25:11 is very precise, stating that "this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon 70 years." Continuing in verse 12, "And it will be when 70 years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation." Notice that Jeremiah does not say that the land of Israel will be a desolation and a horror for all 70 years; in fact, it was not until 587 bc that the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed utterly.
In 608 bc, Pharaoh Neco marched through Judah to fight the king of Babylon, Nabopolassar. Josiah sided with Babylon, and lost his life against Neco. Jeremiah composed a lamentation for him (2 Chron. 35:20-27). It is clear that Josiah, under Jeremiah's tutelage, already saw himself as under Babylonian oversight.
Moreover, from Jeremiah 1:13-15 we see that from the beginning of his ministry, in the 13th year of Josiah, Jeremiah was called to proclaim the coming of Babylon. The prophecies of Jeremiah 2-20 seem to date from the Josianic period, and all predict the coming judgment.
For all these reasons, to assert that Jeremiah defined the 70 years as beginning with Nebuchadnezzar is an unsupportable assertion. When we simply count backwards from the conquest of Babylon we come to the death of Josiah, Judah's last hope for a Godly restoration. This began the desolations of Jerusalem.
Chronology of the Babylonian Captivity
Note: 1. BC dates are in terms of current consensus chronology.
2. The Biblical year begins in the fall, "October 1," though BC dates begin January 1. The BC dates in this chronology are for the year after the Biblical year begins. I have grouped all events in the Biblical year inside the BC year. For details, see the detailed chronologies we have provided already.
Date Events
608 0 Death of Josiah fighting for Babylon
Accession of Jehoiakim
607 1 Jehoiakim 1
606 2 Jehoiakim 2
605 3 Jehoiakim 3; Nebuchadnezzar accession
Nebuchadnezzar conquers Babylon
Daniel sent to Babylon
604 4 Jehoiakim 4; Nebuchadnezzar 1
Jeremiah 25: all nations to serve Babylon 70 years
603 5 Jehoiakim 5; Nebuchadnezzar 2
First year Jehoiakim serves Nebuchadnezzar
Daniel's graduation and elevation (Dan. 2)
602 6 Jehoiakim 6; Nebuchadnezzar 3
Second year Jehoiakim serves Nebuchadnezzar
601 7 Jehoiakim 7; Nebuchadnezzar 4
Third year Jehoiakim serves Nebuchadnezzar
600 8 Jehoiakim 8; Nebuchadnezzar 5
Nebuchadnezzar stalemated by Egypt
Jehoiakim revolts
599 9 Jehoiakim 9; Nebuchadnezzar 6
598 10 Jehoiakim 10; Nebuchadnezzar 7
Nebuchadnezzar retakes Jerusalem
3023 Jews taken captive; Jeremiah 52:28
597 11 Jehoiakim 11; Nebuchadnezzar 8
Jehoiakim dies.
Jehoiachin rebels against Nebuchadnezzar
Jerusalem beseiged
Jehoiachin taken captive, with 10,000 Jews
Ezekiel goes into captivity
***
593 15 Zedekiah 4; Nebuchadnezzar 12
Ezekiel ordained by God
592 16 Zedekiah 5; Nebuchadnezzar 13
591 17 Zedekiah 6; Nebuchadnezzar 14
God abandons Temple, Ezk. 8-11
590 18 1 Zedekiah 7; Nebuchadnezzar 15
589 19 2 Zedekiah 8; Nebuchadnezzar 16
588 20 3 1 Zedekiah 9; Nebuchadnezzar 17
Zedekiah revolts
Investiture of Jerusalem begins
Desolation of cities of Judah
587 21 4 2 Zedekiah 10; Nebuchadnezzar 18
832 Jews into captivity; Jeremiah 52:29
586 22 5 3 1 Zedekiah 11; Nebuchadnezzar 19
Fall of Jerusalem
585 23 6 4 2 Nebuchadnezzar 20
584 24 7 5 3 Nebuchadnezzar 21
583 25 8 6 4 Nebuchadnezzar 22
582 26 9 7 5 Nebuchadnezzar 23
745 Jews into captivity; Jeremiah 52:30
***
563 45 28 26 24 Nebuchadnezzar 42
562 46 29 27 25 Nebuchadnezzar 43
Death of Nebuchadnezzar
561 47 30 28 26 Evil-Merodach 1
Jehoiachin restored in 37th year of his captivity
560 48 31 29 27 Evil-Merodach 2
Evil-Merodach slain
559 49 32 30 28 Neriglissar 1
558 50 33 31 29 Neriglissar 2
557 51 34 32 30 Neriglissar 3
556 52 35 33 31 Neriglissar 4
Death of Neriglissar
555 53 36 34 32 Labashi-marduk 1
Labashi-marduk slain
554 54 37 35 33 Nabonidus 1
553 55 38 36 34 Nabonidus 2
552 56 39 37 35 Nabonidus 3
551 57 40 38 36 Nabonidus 4
Belshazzar vice-regent 1(?); Daniel 7
550 58 41 39 37 Nabonidus 5; Belshazzar 2
549 59 42 40 38 Belshazzar 3; Daniel 8
***
539 69 52 50 48 Nabonidus 16
Fourth quarter (beginning of next year, Hebrew):
Nabonidus 17
Nabonidus flees
Belshazzar proclaims self co-ruler
Capture of Babylon by Ugbaru, for Persia
Darius/Cyrus "receives" kingdom
Ugbaru runs city for 17 days, dies
Daniel candidate for governor; Daniel 6
538 70 53 51 49 Cyrus accession year
Cambyses, Prince of Persia, opposes Cyrus's policy toward Jews
I should remark that there are three other periods of 70 years that overlap this one. The second period of 70 years is indirectly mentioned in Haggai 1:4, which is in the second year of Darius. In the year after the 70 years of the Temple's desolations, Haggai rebukes the people for letting a whole year go by without getting to work rebuilding the Temple. The beginning of this 70 year period is recorded in Ezekiel 8-11, when God departed the Temple of Solomon and left it desolate. Ezekiel 8:1 dates the vision of the abominations in the Temple, and God's subsequent desolation thereof, in the 6th year of Zedekiah (= of Jehoiachin's exile), or 591 bc. The second year of Darius is set at 520 bc, the year after the completion of the 70 years of desolation. For details, see the chronology in chapter 19 below.
Second, Zechariah 1:12 reads: "How long wilt Thou have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which Thou has been indignant these seventy years?" This period of indignation against the cities around Jerusalem refers to the initial investiture of the city (588 bc), which brought distress, naturally, on the cities roundabout. Zechariah's question is asked in the 70th year from that event. See chapter 19 below.
The same period of 70 years is alluded to in Zechariah 7:1 and 5, which tell us that in the 4th year
of Darius the people asked whether they should continue to mourn the events of the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred 70 years earlier. The events spoken of took place in the 9th-11th years of Zedekiah, 588-586 bc. The fasts spoken of in Zechariah 7 & 8 are listed in 8:19: "The fast of the 4th month (commemorating the city smitten on the 9th day of the 4th month in the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 5th month (commemorating the burning of the Temple on the 7th day of the 5th month of Zedekiah 11), and the fast of the 7th month (commemorating the slaying of Gedaliah in the 7th month of Zedekiah 11), and the fast of the 10th month (commemorating the inception of the siege on the 10th day of the 10th month of Zedekiah 9)." Thus, the first commemoration was in the 9th year of Zedekiah, and the 70 years of commemorations begin at this point. The 4th year of Darius is the year after these 70 years were completed.
A third possible 70-year period would begin with the actual fall of Jerusalem in 4th month of 586 bc. This period would be up in the 4th month of 517 bc. Eight months later, in the 12th month of 516 bc, the Temple was completed. Thus, the Temple was torn down for 70 years, and was completely rebuilt by end of the 71st year.