It just makes me angry at the leadership even more. Bible scholars are like scientists. They keep researching and go with the consensus of what they have found along with everyone else. If what they think is correct is not found by others they usually will side with them until more concrete evidence is found. The governing body wants to seem like Scolars,but they only agree or quote other scholars that agree with thier narrative. And when respected scholars dont agree their motives are put into question or even thier integrity. I personally believe that the bible is a book of man written with stories and poems as well as historical places and figures. My problem is that they know how seriously other people believe in the bible and are still willing to mislead them into thinking thier way. It's also ironic because the bible literally says that it's not up to personal interpretation and also you will basically have a horrible fate if you change the message in any way. Just so frustrating to see these fake scholars.
Don’t be this is not a universally accepted idea, to understand the Bible you need to understand the word pictures and worldview as well as what was being spoken about, I advise Micheal Heiser the naked Bible podcast, as well as Jonathan pageau and his the symbolic world for an idea of contextual and historical understanding , the idea that “myth” means not true is false, it refers to patterns, the Bible dismantles the myths of the then worldview by pointing to one source set apart=Holy= objective to which all other sub-causes are ultimately subject to , the meaning of how this functions within laws and experience of life requires understanding.
So interesting! The bible makes so much more sense now im out ! I remember them using the example of jehovah leading the israelites to the red sea as an example of us being ready to obey instruction from them even when it doesn't make sense from a human standpoint ! That helped me to start waking up
the pillars erected by Solomon. the melted sand from the fire pillars and divers finding evidence of chariots under the sea are physical evidence of the place of the crossing. pretty hard to refute.
Chakka, this was outstanding! I was not aware of this. I think JWs don't use the Septuigent (on purpose) and I believe you are correct that the GB absolutely do know about this! Looking forward to more videos like this!! Bravo 👏
JW's don't use the Septuagint (LXX) because Evangelical Christianity traditionally uses the Masoretic Text (MT) as a source to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into vernacular. It should be noted though that the Old Testament in synodal translations commissioned and/or used by the [Greek, Russian, Romanian etc.] Orthodox Church is based on the LXX, and also the first century Christians likely used the LXX when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. I guess the MT has an aura of authenticity in the Christian tradition based on the assumption that the Masoretes had a so-called algorithmic approach to copying the Scriptures, that ensured a virtually error-free accuracy. The fact that the text preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (a millennium older than the Codex Leningrad for example) doesn't have significant differences in reading compared to the MT also weighs in to the reliability of the MT. The fact that the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is completely different at certain points than the Christian interpretation is obviously a totally different story.
@@arthurwweber The earliest translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, produced for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews. Translation was begun in Egypt in the third century B.C.E. and was completed in the following century. According to tradition, about 70 Jewish scholars embarked on the project-thus the designation Septuagint from the Latin Septuaginta, meaning “70.” The translation is commonly referred to as LXX, the Roman numerals for 70. Early manuscripts of the Septuagint use either Greek characters or the four Hebrew letters that make up the Tetragrammaton (YHWH in English) to render God’s name. After the translation of the Hebrew canon was completed, apocryphal writings were added to the Septuagint. However, there is no evidence that Christian Bible writers acknowledged the apocryphal writings by quoting from them, though they often quoted from canonical books in the Septuagint. Furthermore, some first-century Christians had a miraculous gift, enabling them to discern which Bible books were inspired.-1Co 12:4, 10. Today, the Septuagint is an important tool for studying and understanding the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it sheds light on the meaning of certain obscure Hebrew and Aramaic terms.
@@arthurwweber did you know before today, that the NT quote from the OT often? Therefore, those scriptures MUST take on the SAME meaning in the NT, so when the JWs replace the title Lord (which actually the KJV replaced God's name first) they are NOT in error. It also clarifies the scriptures for God is not the author of confusion, confusing people with LORD and Lord.
Great thanks Chaka for this incredibly fascinating, delightful and captivating video! It's a fine game changer for JWs, PIMOs and all others who care for the actual TRUTH. GB will surely not want to effect this in their propaganda because it's a big root that may shake the foundation of their religio-dollar empire. This enlightening video should be shared far and wide! 👍👍👍 Chaka
Sigh. The whole point of the story is that parting the sea was a miracle. The story doesn't function as a story if they crossed over some shallow marsh. This is not an argument that parting a mighty sea really happened. It's an argument that that is the story that was written.
God could have still blown a wall of water on the Egyptians while the Israelites could get away while walking on reeds. Anything is possible but to publish the actual meaning of the Red Sea and not carry through with it is deceiving. They don't mind using Michael as Jesus name when he was in heaven the first time but you never hear anyone say what Jesus name is now that he is back in heaven. Shouldn't it go back to being Michael? They won't use that name because they know they messed up the first time by calling Jesus Michael which it wasn't. There were other archangels in heaven had they read the other apocrypha books that were taken out of the bibles except for the Syrian bible and the Ethiopian bibles. JWs go with which way the wind is blowing and they change their doctrines more than they change their underwear. True story!
The exodus story is very odd.... 600,000 men on foot plus families, children and elderly and pregnant, donkey carts and massive quantities of goods, plus flocks and herds plus a great mixed crowd etc ... Watchtower says perhaps 3 million folks plus animals. Such a convoy could cover no more than 10 miles per day, plus the amount of water alone needed every day with modest approximations is vast, off the scale. They were not allowed to leave their homes until morning and a Hebrew farmer living in the north of Goshen would have needed some 2 weeks to travel just to the start point of the convoy. Their army of 600000 must have had weapons because they defeated an army immediately after crossing red sea, a massive army plus weapons so hardly slaves. The whole story just doesn't make sense on any practical level The reason the red sea is used is because the Hebrews assembled at a location on the banks of the red sea, and crossed over to other similar locations.....but no water either side, crossing over the animals would need water, vast amounts, but these areas have no water. And why would the entire Hebrew army be in front of the convoy when the threat was from the rear. All you need is a map, some basic data about animals etc and a little maths and the whole story falls apart.
Agree! And even if someone Supernatural wanted to save the Israelites from Egypt this God should’ve just saved them at Egypt at least peacefully😅didn’t need to waste time doing all those nonsense miracles (the worst killing innocent people of Egypt and firstborns😢) for a God who claims Nothing is Impossible😅The best should’ve just SOFTENED Pharoah’s heart not HARDENED it, as he says he did harden it in His own word😅What a joke this story is!
She talked about sinking in deep waters as being a metaphor for distress, but a "reedy sea" or swamp could hardly be deep. Mind you the psalmist said he was in deep water when he was only neck deep and sinking in the mire . Mmm. Gosh it sounds like a metaphor that applied to me as a PIMO. I really did feel like I was stuck in the mud, unable to move in any direction.
Le passage d’exode est très clair : des chevaux, un vent qui assèche la mer, des gens qui marchent. Oui, il y a une dimension métaphorique, mais c’est ainsi que le Seigneur a toujours enseigné. Il révèle Sa Gloire par des images fortes qu’on peut appliquer même dans un sens plus symbolique. Par exemple, Jésus qui marche sur l’eau, qui calme la tempête, est une image forte qu’Il a choisit de nous offrir pour nous réconforter dans nos tempêtes.
Every time I see Steven Lett I can't get the grin at the end of the sentence when he says, "Look at thar little enemy of god." Who the heck talks like that?! He has no business being a king in heaven ruling over anyone. It's all bs anyways but y9u talk about arrogant! Just wow the arrogance is staggering.
For me this is an interesting idea. It is important to listen and think about all these possibilities. This is great on life after WT. Nothing is only black or white.
Amazing video and amazing concept, I love your videos!! I am curious, I know it’s outside of the wheelhouse of JW, but what are your beliefs on the traditional Christian Bible representation of hell as a conscious forever place, vs simply an expression of a place being mistranslated?
@@jeradkirk1927 Great question. I'm not an expert on this. Bart Ehrman has done a few episodes on this on his Misquoting Jesus podcast. In the traditional Jewish thought there was no concept of an afterlife. People were said to be satisfied with their days when they died. Sheol (the grave) was then translated as Hades in the NT which later confused things as ideas from Greek mythology infiltrated Christian thought. Hades meant something else in Greek mythology. I think if you check out Bart's episodes on this topic you'll get a more coherent response.
The platform the early JWs ran on was “truth” and a purist adherence to literal Bible translation. Thanks for this example of how the JWs are in fact no different from the “false religions” they criticize. As with all religions, perception matters, not facts.
The JW’s never ran on truth. The Watchtower originally taught the end times began in 1799 and that Armageddon was coming in 1910 and then 1914 and several other dates followed but nothing happened.
They do not criticize other religions. They firmly state they have the truth and all others are false and they lay out how. It are the JW haters that are the criticizers; no matter what they say or do you people gossip about them.
From the JW website, likely where this lady got her information in the first place: Red Sea The body of water that separates northeastern Africa from the Arabian Peninsula; it includes the two arms known as the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of ʽAqaba. The Red Sea, as the term is now used, measures some 2,250 km (1,400 mi) in length, has a maximum width of about 354 km (220 mi) and an average depth of approximately 610 m (2,000 ft). It is part of the great geologic fault known as the Rift Valley. Because of a fast rate of evaporation, the waters of this sea are quite salty. Strong winds, rapid changes in wind direction, and the presence of large reefs make it hazardous for boats to navigate the Red Sea. Along the eastern coast there are high mountain ranges, whereas rocky tablelands and low hills occupy the western coast. There is good reason for understanding that the original-language expressions rendered “Red Sea” apply to the Red Sea in general or to either one of its northern arms. (Ex 10:19; 13:18; Nu 33:10, 11; Jg 11:16; Ac 7:36) It was the waters of the Red Sea that Jehovah miraculously divided to let the Israelites pass through on dry land, but he drowned Pharaoh and his military forces who came in pursuit. (Ex 14:21-15:22; De 11:4; Jos 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Ne 9:9; Ps 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13, 15) The Biblical passages relating this incident use the Hebrew expression yam (sea) or yam-suphʹ (sea of reeds or rushes). On the basis of the literal meaning of yam-suphʹ, certain scholars have argued that the Israelites crossed a mere swampy place, such as the Bitter Lakes region, and not the Red Sea (principally the western arm, the Gulf of Suez, where others believe the crossing likely occurred). However, it should be noted that the waters were sufficient to cover Pharaoh’s military forces. (Ex 14:28, 29) This would have been impossible in a mere swamp. Also, Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 rule out a mere swampy place, for these texts mention the same incident and use the Greek expression e·ry·thraʹ thaʹlas·sa, meaning “Red Sea.” (See EXODUS.) The historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) used the same Greek expression to refer, not to a swamp or an insignificant body of water, but to “the Indian Ocean, in which the Red Sea” is located.-A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 693; see PIHAHIROTH. In a pronouncement of doom for Edom, the outcry resulting from Edom’s calamity is described as being heard at the Red Sea. (Jer 49:21) This is understandable, since Edomite territory in its southern extremity bordered on the Red Sea (1Ki 9:26), that is, the sea’s northeastern arm, the Gulf of ʽAqaba. Israel’s boundary also extended to this point.-Ex 23:31.
There is no new revelation here. In fact, one might say you are being somewhat "overzealous" in seeking flaws in the JW doctrine, a common occurrence when individuals first depart from the organization. Nonetheless, while scholars generally agree that 'Yam Suph' accurately translates to 'Sea of Reeds,' it is also essential to recognize that the Red Sea divides into two branches at its northern end. The Red Sea bifurcates into the Gulf of Suez to the northwest and the Gulf of Aqaba to the northeast. The Gulf of Suez is a bit more shallow, with depths ranging approximately from 180 to 210 feet, and is flanked by an expansive coastal plain. Conversely, the Gulf of Aqaba is lined by a narrow coastal strip and plunges to a depth of 5,500 feet. It must be noted that 'Yam Suph' in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 9:26) is identified with the Gulf of Aqaba. However, contemporary scholars often posit that the Israelites' crossing occurred at the Gulf of Suez, possibly because it aligns with their inclination towards nonbelief in miraculous occurrences. Personally, traversing waters that are 210 feet deep would be quite miraculous indeed. All in all referring to Yam Suph as the Red Sea is no big deal. It technically is the Northwestern arm of the Red Sea.
Nicely said, I’ve been up the Red Sea from south to north and thence the Gulf of Aqaba to Elat as a Merchant Seaman, at the ‘fork’ of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba is an island, smack in the middle. Also the Hebrews supposedly crossed in one night, supposedly three million of them, children, elderly, pregnant women, the disabled, all of their livestock and luggage. Seems to me that the dividing would need to be several miles wide, I in-vision total confusion and chaos, give me a break 😂
@@dinolior7563 while I believe that I would be wasting my time providing you a response because the depth of your thinking ability seems shallow -Pun intended, I will. Your assumption that I was defending a position merely emphasizes my point: there is no novel revelation here. In fact, I find the video quite amusing, as if it were presenting some groundbreaking insight. It appears you may not have thoroughly read all the literature provided by the Jehovah's Witnesses. And, like many adherents, you seem to have been stripped of the capacity for independent thought. Consequently, when you come across information that aligns with your preconceived notions, you accept it without scrutinizing its truthfulness. This video is an overreach, and without the information I've provided, many have accepted it uncritically, convinced that the governing body is concealing something by translating 'the sea of reeds' as the 'Red Sea.' However, their own publications disclose this information and explain their belief that the Israelites crossed at the Gulf of Suez, a view supported by numerous scholars. The Governing body might just be hiding a lot of things, but this is not one of them. This is actually very hilarious.
@@InnerWorldsNetwork-jz8mt Thank you for your comment. Nowhere in the video do I claim that this is new or original information. I even show that the Governing Body are aware of these facts but hide them from their adherents. Interestingly, you boldly try to show of your "knowledge" of Bible scholarship and Bible geography. Then in the very next sentence claim that contemporary scholars have pointed out where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. Which serious Bible scholar believes that the Exodus happened as the Bible suggests???
I hear that there's no archaeological evidence for the Exodus anyway, whether it's the reed sea or the red sea. It's a good story, and I wonder if the original writers would be laughing at the idea of people insisting on taking it as literal history.
That's what happens when one just believes things that fit their own narrative. Do a simple RUclips search on Sodom and gemorrah, of Babylon, on Jerusalem, on biblical artifacts, on mount Sinai, on Noah's ark, on manuscripts, on Pharoah and Egypt. Not only are these things written of in the bible, they even exist in atheist books, they exist in non believing books, they are written of in history books in public schools. When a person considers a creator, a GOD that is the one who created all things.. and then considers the fact that all eill be judged for their lives they lived.. and let me not even bring up being judged for their very own sin... when a person considers these things and considers flesh vs spirit and holiness for worldliness... Remember what's said... the flesh and carnally minded mankind will reject the truth to believe a lie. . However what most dont truly realize is that, just because someone might deceive themselves...that in no way whatsoever changes what actually is. Just a thought.
There's a documentary on this by historian/explorer Albert Pin on Disney +. He goes to the area if could possibly be. However, it can mean red, as in Kings 9 where Solomon made a fleet in Eilat on the Yam Suf, which is still on the red sea today.
What about where the greek scriptures states " with the mouth one makes confession for confession " ( WestCott and Hort ) which the Bastardised NWT changes to " public declaration " Totally changed the whole meaning .
I've got another point ( Bible not nwr ) God battling Leviathan and sending it deep under the earth. Don't go down that rabbit hole . Seriously. The early Bible books were all written together - noticeable when you compare that with the Sun standing still ( Jericho ? )
The verb in question is "homologeo" (ὁμολογέω), literally it means "to speak the same, to speak together, to agree" and it is used with the meaning of "to confess", "to profess", "to admit", "to acknowledge", "to declare". Rendering "homologeo" as "publicly declare" in Romans 10:9, 10 is not a mistranslation, it's not a forced translation. What _is_ wrong (or at least incomplete) theologically is to apply the "public declaration" solely to the two affirmative answers to the questions the speaker asks of the baptism candidates near the conclusion of his talk at conventions and assemblies. In a general Christian context any occasion when a believer confesses, or publicly declares, their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and preaches the Gospel even in informal settings is an application of "homologeo" in the sense of Paul's words recorded in Romans 10:9, 10.
I think there may also be a notable error with Acts 12:15 in most Bibles. It is rather unfortunate that the same Koine Greek word is used to refer both to supernatural spirit messengers from God, as well as regular human messengers. This forces translators to examine the context to determine whether to render it as "angel" or "messenger". I think the context strongly suggest the rendering of "messenger" at Acts 12:15. Here are two logical reasons to support this conclusion: 1. Given that the disciples considered the servant's claim that Peter was at the gate, to be extraordinary and unbelievable, it's quite contradictory to suppose they would offer the even more extraordinary suggestion that it was an angel. 2. The disciples would have known better than to think that an angel - a supernatural spirit messenger from God - could be barred from entering in their midst by a gate/door. An actual spirit messenger from God would have the ability to appear directly in their midst! The more logical alternative is that they believed the imprisoned Peter was sending word to them VIA a human messenger and the servant misheard the messenger's introduction which included the name "Peter" and wrongly concluded it was Peter himself. This would explain the "his" in "his -angel- messenger". They were offering the alternative explanation that it was Peter's messenger - perhaps one he customarily used. It is my belief that some very early translator, still having fresh in mind the account of Peter's angelic rescue just a few verses before, had his mind primed to erroneously render this particular messenger as "angel". Subsequent translators just followed in his footsteps without carefully considering its validity. After all, "angel" is technically a valid translation for the word. But a careful examination of the logics of the passage strongly suggests this rendering to be erroneous.
Interesting video. According to 1st century Christian belief the Hebrews crossed the "Red" (from "Ερυθρὰν") sea. (See Hebrews 11:29) It would be even more of a sensational miracle in my opinion if the untrained Israelites with children crossed a swamp but the well trained military of Egypt drowned. 🤷♂️🤦♂️
And when you tell them about different translations they tell you not to be too dogmatic. Another one of their trademark sayings yet they are the very ones that are dogmatic like the name Jehovah. Many years ago they would say if it wasn't for them people wouldn't know God's name and now one of the Goof Ball members said on a pod cast that they really don't know what God's name is but they use what the majority of people think it is. They are so deceptive!!
@@HeartfeltAwakening Well, there is no archaeological evidence of a mass crossing of the "Red Sea", of a group of people of the number the Bible describes wandering in the wilderness or of a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt. No serious scholar believes any of this happened as is described in the Bible.
You know the only reason Jehovah is used in the new testament don't you, to take the glory away from Jesus not to refer to him as a GOD and it's good to have you back
Thank you AKingdom4mypeople. This is a great point. YHWH does not appear in the New Testament but the JW leadership insert the word Jehovah in there to push their own agenda.
All it says is that it's the Sea near Baal Zephon. There's no mention of reeds or rushes or swamps. The Sea near Baal Zephon is the Red Sea. Be more careful in the future.
Yes, we're talking about Exodus 14 and 15. It's the sea near Baal Zephon. The body of water they're referring to is the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. It's not a marsh or swamp or reeds or weeds as the word seems to imply. Once you learn Hebrew, it will make perfect sense. It's confusing if you don't know Hebrew, but once you learn Hebrew, it's very easy. That Professor at Yale does not know Hebrew. I know she doesn't know because I do know. I'll tell you what she would have told you if she knew what she was talking about. The good news is that Hebrew is very easy to learn. You only need about 1000 words to read about 90% of Tenakh. I'm not even good at languages, but Hebrew is very easy to learn. I highly recommend it. But for now, I can clear up the confusion about סוּף. Firstly, although it is written in Hebrew, the origin of the word is foreign. I presume it's Egyptian, but I don't know. It is understood to mean Reed or Weed, but it's also understood that Reed or Weed is only the Semitic root of the word not its functional meaning. For instance, my name is David. That's a Hebrew word and its root is Beloved. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that people love me, it just means that my name is David. סוּף is similarly disappointing. The root of the foreign word is Reed or Weed, but it's a foreign word understood to mean Red in the context of the name of the Sea. Like I say, very disappointing. It doesn't imply anything about the physical characteristics of the Sea, it's just used as a name. But if the sea is named after Reeds or Papyrus, it is named after learning or teaching because the reed and papyrus symbolises the imparting of knowledge. But סוּף is also a proper Hebrew word in its own right. The primative root of the Hebrew word סוּף is about coming to an end or ceasing to be. So it's possible Moses named it after that moment where they were trapped there. So, although I obviously can't personally attest to the literal veracity of the historical claim, I can tell you for sure that there is no error in the translation. There is a lot of information let out about the conventions of the original languages, but the imagery conveyed in the English translation is much the same as the imagery conveyed in the original Hebrew. You do still need to learn the Hebrew to get the full meaning of the story, however. I highly recommend learning Hebrew. The reward is infinitely greater than the effort.
@@davidevans9992 Thank you for your comment. Christine Hayes, a Yale professor in Hebrew Bible doesn't know Biblical Hebrew? I suggest you look up her CV before making such suggestions. To your other points, I'll just be repeating what I've said in the video already, so my only suggestion is you watch the video again to see the basis of the arguments made.
@@AnthonyMorrisReturns Well, Christine isn't what you think. She's a Sydney girl. The whole Yale thing with her is false advertising. IYKYK. She's not Jewish. I think she was born in America, but she's Aussie like me. She's not Jewish, and doesn't speak Hebrew. She had a bit of interest in... a particular thing... but never really studied Hebrew and knows next to nothing about it. I have actual knowledge, she just has bluff. I kid you not.
I think it's also important to to keep in mind that just because "Reed Sea" is the correct name, that doesn't necessarily mean the body of water was a shallow, reed-growing sea. What if it was called "Reed Sea" because it was notable that the people in the area fashioned fishing rafts made of reeds? What if there was activity whether natural or man-made that resulted in times of the year when there would be a lot of reeds floating in the sea? What if there was a nearby marshy area that grew lots of reeds - maybe even in the distant past - and the sea was named after it? Some names are misnomers. Some names have an explanation behind them that aren't obvious.
@@caribbeanman3379 You could be right. But why change the name altogether? Most people can't raise any of those questions you're raising because of the mistranslation.
@@AnthonyMorrisReturns I'm not saying it would be a good reason to not render it as "Reed Sea". I'm saying that the more accurate "Reed Sea" does not necessarily refute the notion that it was a normal deep sea.
@@giddygiddy5619 Hey Giddy Giddy. Thanks for checking in on me. I'm still around - I've been dealing with some personal difficulties but will be back soon with some hopefully interesting videos
Yikes, no more miracles, kind of takes the fun out of believing anything. Why bother with Jesus and the power he demonstrated. Move along, say the faith monitors.
It just makes me angry at the leadership even more. Bible scholars are like scientists. They keep researching and go with the consensus of what they have found along with everyone else. If what they think is correct is not found by others they usually will side with them until more concrete evidence is found. The governing body wants to seem like Scolars,but they only agree or quote other scholars that agree with thier narrative. And when respected scholars dont agree their motives are put into question or even thier integrity. I personally believe that the bible is a book of man written with stories and poems as well as historical places and figures. My problem is that they know how seriously other people believe in the bible and are still willing to mislead them into thinking thier way. It's also ironic because the bible literally says that it's not up to personal interpretation and also you will basically have a horrible fate if you change the message in any way. Just so frustrating to see these fake scholars.
you really poured out your mind
I believe what it states at 2 Timothy 3:16, written by a chosen vessel of Jesus (Acts 9:15)
1. john 2: 27
Don’t be this is not a universally accepted idea, to understand the Bible you need to understand the word pictures and worldview as well as what was being spoken about, I advise Micheal Heiser the naked Bible podcast, as well as Jonathan pageau and his the symbolic world for an idea of contextual and historical understanding , the idea that “myth” means not true is false, it refers to patterns, the Bible dismantles the myths of the then worldview by pointing to one source set apart=Holy= objective to which all other sub-causes are ultimately subject to , the meaning of how this functions within laws and experience of life requires understanding.
@@maja3942Good scripture. Thanks bro
So interesting! The bible makes so much more sense now im out !
I remember them using the example of jehovah leading the israelites to the red sea as an example of us being ready to obey instruction from them even when it doesn't make sense from a human standpoint ! That helped me to start waking up
what bible are you using?
@@mrm8850 I'm not . I just mean it I don't believe most of it anymore
@@freebird197 use hebrew
the pillars erected by Solomon. the melted sand from the fire pillars and divers finding evidence of chariots under the sea are physical evidence of the place of the crossing. pretty hard to refute.
Ever find a shopping cart in a river?
@@theograice8080 wheel size was quite a bit different. haha
seen that.
Chakka, this was outstanding! I was not aware of this. I think JWs don't use the Septuigent (on purpose) and I believe you are correct that the GB absolutely do know about this! Looking forward to more videos like this!! Bravo 👏
You might wanna search through their website a little closer.
JW's don't use the Septuagint (LXX) because Evangelical Christianity traditionally uses the Masoretic Text (MT) as a source to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into vernacular. It should be noted though that the Old Testament in synodal translations commissioned and/or used by the [Greek, Russian, Romanian etc.] Orthodox Church is based on the LXX, and also the first century Christians likely used the LXX when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. I guess the MT has an aura of authenticity in the Christian tradition based on the assumption that the Masoretes had a so-called algorithmic approach to copying the Scriptures, that ensured a virtually error-free accuracy. The fact that the text preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (a millennium older than the Codex Leningrad for example) doesn't have significant differences in reading compared to the MT also weighs in to the reliability of the MT. The fact that the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is completely different at certain points than the Christian interpretation is obviously a totally different story.
@@arthurwweber
The earliest translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, produced for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews. Translation was begun in Egypt in the third century B.C.E. and was completed in the following century.
According to tradition, about 70 Jewish scholars embarked on the project-thus the designation Septuagint from the Latin Septuaginta, meaning “70.” The translation is commonly referred to as LXX, the Roman numerals for 70. Early manuscripts of the Septuagint use either Greek characters or the four Hebrew letters that make up the Tetragrammaton (YHWH in English) to render God’s name. After the translation of the Hebrew canon was completed, apocryphal writings were added to the Septuagint. However, there is no evidence that Christian Bible writers acknowledged the apocryphal writings by quoting from them, though they often quoted from canonical books in the Septuagint. Furthermore, some first-century Christians had a miraculous gift, enabling them to discern which Bible books were inspired.-1Co 12:4, 10.
Today, the Septuagint is an important tool for studying and understanding the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it sheds light on the meaning of certain obscure Hebrew and Aramaic terms.
@@arthurwweber did you know before today, that the NT quote from the OT often? Therefore, those scriptures MUST take on the SAME meaning in the NT, so when the JWs replace the title Lord (which actually the KJV replaced God's name first) they are NOT in error. It also clarifies the scriptures for God is not the author of confusion, confusing people with LORD and Lord.
They hide this mistranslation in other Christian groups. I grew up protestant and never knew about this, and I am 20 years old!
Great thanks Chaka for this incredibly fascinating, delightful and captivating video! It's a fine game changer for JWs, PIMOs and all others who care for the actual TRUTH.
GB will surely not want to effect this in their propaganda because it's a big root that may shake the foundation of their religio-dollar empire. This enlightening video should be shared far and wide! 👍👍👍 Chaka
@@haynehifanny8006 Thank you so much Hayne. Yes, the Governing Body cover up anything that might shake the foundations of their authority.
Sigh. The whole point of the story is that parting the sea was a miracle. The story doesn't function as a story if they crossed over some shallow marsh.
This is not an argument that parting a mighty sea really happened. It's an argument that that is the story that was written.
God could have still blown a wall of water on the Egyptians while the Israelites could get away while walking on reeds. Anything is possible but to publish the actual meaning of the Red Sea and not carry through with it is deceiving. They don't mind using Michael as Jesus name when he was in heaven the first time but you never hear anyone say what Jesus name is now that he is back in heaven. Shouldn't it go back to being Michael? They won't use that name because they know they messed up the first time by calling Jesus Michael which it wasn't. There were other archangels in heaven had they read the other apocrypha books that were taken out of the bibles except for the Syrian bible and the Ethiopian bibles. JWs go with which way the wind is blowing and they change their doctrines more than they change their underwear. True story!
The exodus story is very odd.... 600,000 men on foot plus families, children and elderly and pregnant, donkey carts and massive quantities of goods, plus flocks and herds plus a great mixed crowd etc ... Watchtower says perhaps 3 million folks plus animals. Such a convoy could cover no more than 10 miles per day, plus the amount of water alone needed every day with modest approximations is vast, off the scale. They were not allowed to leave their homes until morning and a Hebrew farmer living in the north of Goshen would have needed some 2 weeks to travel just to the start point of the convoy.
Their army of 600000 must have had weapons because they defeated an army immediately after crossing red sea, a massive army plus weapons so hardly slaves. The whole story just doesn't make sense on any practical level
The reason the red sea is used is because the Hebrews assembled at a location on the banks of the red sea, and crossed over to other similar locations.....but no water either side, crossing over the animals would need water, vast amounts, but these areas have no water. And why would the entire Hebrew army be in front of the convoy when the threat was from the rear.
All you need is a map, some basic data about animals etc and a little maths and the whole story falls apart.
Agree! And even if someone Supernatural wanted to save the Israelites from Egypt this God should’ve just saved them at Egypt at least peacefully😅didn’t need to waste time doing all those nonsense miracles (the worst killing innocent people of Egypt and firstborns😢) for a God who claims Nothing is Impossible😅The best should’ve just SOFTENED Pharoah’s heart not HARDENED it, as he says he did harden it in His own word😅What a joke this story is!
@@lh1673 god is a maniac
@@astridmiller7938
I came to the realization that there is NO god, not the one portrayed in the buybull, nor any other! Just saying.
@@greyberet1 i never believed that gauds exist, its people are stuck on stupid, and any bull book is made up junk. do i make myself clear😋😛🤪😝
@@astridmiller7938God bless you…
She talked about sinking in deep waters as being a metaphor for distress, but a "reedy sea" or swamp could hardly be deep. Mind you the psalmist said he was in deep water when he was only neck deep and sinking in the mire . Mmm. Gosh it sounds like a metaphor that applied to me as a PIMO. I really did feel like I was stuck in the mud, unable to move in any direction.
I love her lectures. This is REAL Bible scholarship.
NO . . IT ISN'T !!! 🤭👎
@@akatheheretic3014 Oh YES it is.
Brilliant video Chaka. I learned a lot! Thank you for the fresh info and research! - Jason
@@DiffiCULTChildhood Thank you so much Jason. I appreciate your kind words🙏🙏🙏
Le passage d’exode est très clair : des chevaux, un vent qui assèche la mer, des gens qui marchent. Oui, il y a une dimension métaphorique, mais c’est ainsi que le Seigneur a toujours enseigné. Il révèle Sa Gloire par des images fortes qu’on peut appliquer même dans un sens plus symbolique. Par exemple, Jésus qui marche sur l’eau, qui calme la tempête, est une image forte qu’Il a choisit de nous offrir pour nous réconforter dans nos tempêtes.
Every time I see Steven Lett I can't get the grin at the end of the sentence when he says, "Look at thar little enemy of god."
Who the heck talks like that?! He has no business being a king in heaven ruling over anyone. It's all bs anyways but y9u talk about arrogant! Just wow the arrogance is staggering.
Very interesting!
@@1991LMR Thanks so much 🙏 🙏🙏
For me this is an interesting idea. It is important to listen and think about all these possibilities. This is great on life after WT. Nothing is only black or white.
You believe the truth is in a professor from YALE UNIVERSITY ???? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
He believes in keeping an open mind!😮😅👍👀🤔🤫🧐😵💫🙈😆😎🇺🇸 33:54
Christine Hayes has several degrees on the subject and knows the language. She is more capable of breaking down these writings than most.
@@AntiMonitor52 especially the governing body muppets
@@astridmiller7938 100%
😂 very good
Thanks for the information!
Amazing video and amazing concept, I love your videos!!
I am curious, I know it’s outside of the wheelhouse of JW, but what are your beliefs on the traditional Christian Bible representation of hell as a conscious forever place, vs simply an expression of a place being mistranslated?
@@jeradkirk1927 Great question. I'm not an expert on this. Bart Ehrman has done a few episodes on this on his Misquoting Jesus podcast. In the traditional Jewish thought there was no concept of an afterlife. People were said to be satisfied with their days when they died. Sheol (the grave) was then translated as Hades in the NT which later confused things as ideas from Greek mythology infiltrated Christian thought. Hades meant something else in Greek mythology. I think if you check out Bart's episodes on this topic you'll get a more coherent response.
The platform the early JWs ran on was “truth” and a purist adherence to literal Bible translation. Thanks for this example of how the JWs are in fact no different from the “false religions” they criticize. As with all religions, perception matters, not facts.
The JW’s never ran on truth. The Watchtower originally taught the end times began in 1799 and that Armageddon was coming in 1910 and then 1914 and several other dates followed but nothing happened.
IF THEY WE'RE FALSE NOBODY WOULD BE ANGRY. TRUTH MAKES PEOPLE ANGRY FOOL.
Jehovahs Witnesses are a way a life not a religion fool.
They do not criticize other religions. They firmly state they have the truth and all others are false and they lay out how. It are the JW haters that are the criticizers; no matter what they say or do you people gossip about them.
From the JW website, likely where this lady got her information in the first place:
Red Sea
The body of water that separates northeastern Africa from the Arabian Peninsula; it includes the two arms known as the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of ʽAqaba. The Red Sea, as the term is now used, measures some 2,250 km (1,400 mi) in length, has a maximum width of about 354 km (220 mi) and an average depth of approximately 610 m (2,000 ft). It is part of the great geologic fault known as the Rift Valley. Because of a fast rate of evaporation, the waters of this sea are quite salty. Strong winds, rapid changes in wind direction, and the presence of large reefs make it hazardous for boats to navigate the Red Sea. Along the eastern coast there are high mountain ranges, whereas rocky tablelands and low hills occupy the western coast.
There is good reason for understanding that the original-language expressions rendered “Red Sea” apply to the Red Sea in general or to either one of its northern arms. (Ex 10:19; 13:18; Nu 33:10, 11; Jg 11:16; Ac 7:36) It was the waters of the Red Sea that Jehovah miraculously divided to let the Israelites pass through on dry land, but he drowned Pharaoh and his military forces who came in pursuit. (Ex 14:21-15:22; De 11:4; Jos 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Ne 9:9; Ps 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13, 15) The Biblical passages relating this incident use the Hebrew expression yam (sea) or yam-suphʹ (sea of reeds or rushes). On the basis of the literal meaning of yam-suphʹ, certain scholars have argued that the Israelites crossed a mere swampy place, such as the Bitter Lakes region, and not the Red Sea (principally the western arm, the Gulf of Suez, where others believe the crossing likely occurred). However, it should be noted that the waters were sufficient to cover Pharaoh’s military forces. (Ex 14:28, 29) This would have been impossible in a mere swamp. Also, Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 rule out a mere swampy place, for these texts mention the same incident and use the Greek expression e·ry·thraʹ thaʹlas·sa, meaning “Red Sea.” (See EXODUS.) The historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) used the same Greek expression to refer, not to a swamp or an insignificant body of water, but to “the Indian Ocean, in which the Red Sea” is located.-A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 693; see PIHAHIROTH.
In a pronouncement of doom for Edom, the outcry resulting from Edom’s calamity is described as being heard at the Red Sea. (Jer 49:21) This is understandable, since Edomite territory in its southern extremity bordered on the Red Sea (1Ki 9:26), that is, the sea’s northeastern arm, the Gulf of ʽAqaba. Israel’s boundary also extended to this point.-Ex 23:31.
You are so right! I heard about this a while back. Thank you so much!
Fascinating!
Confusing.
There is no new revelation here. In fact, one might say you are being somewhat "overzealous" in seeking flaws in the JW doctrine, a common occurrence when individuals first depart from the organization. Nonetheless, while scholars generally agree that 'Yam Suph' accurately translates to 'Sea of Reeds,' it is also essential to recognize that the Red Sea divides into two branches at its northern end. The Red Sea bifurcates into the Gulf of Suez to the northwest and the Gulf of Aqaba to the northeast. The Gulf of Suez is a bit more shallow, with depths ranging approximately from 180 to 210 feet, and is flanked by an expansive coastal plain. Conversely, the Gulf of Aqaba is lined by a narrow coastal strip and plunges to a depth of 5,500 feet. It must be noted that 'Yam Suph' in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 9:26) is identified with the Gulf of Aqaba. However, contemporary scholars often posit that the Israelites' crossing occurred at the Gulf of Suez, possibly because it aligns with their inclination towards nonbelief in miraculous occurrences. Personally, traversing waters that are 210 feet deep would be quite miraculous indeed. All in all referring to Yam Suph as the Red Sea is no big deal. It technically is the Northwestern arm of the Red Sea.
Nicely said, I’ve been up the Red Sea from south to north and thence the Gulf of Aqaba to Elat as a Merchant Seaman, at the ‘fork’ of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba is an island, smack in the middle.
Also the Hebrews supposedly crossed in one night, supposedly three million of them, children, elderly, pregnant women, the disabled, all of their livestock and luggage. Seems to me that the dividing would need to be several miles wide, I in-vision total confusion and chaos, give me a break 😂
It's sad that you can see and understand the real meaning of something and yet continue to believe or defend what it isn't.
@@dinolior7563 while I believe that I would be wasting my time providing you a response because the depth of your thinking ability seems shallow -Pun intended, I will. Your assumption that I was defending a position merely emphasizes my point: there is no novel revelation here. In fact, I find the video quite amusing, as if it were presenting some groundbreaking insight. It appears you may not have thoroughly read all the literature provided by the Jehovah's Witnesses. And, like many adherents, you seem to have been stripped of the capacity for independent thought. Consequently, when you come across information that aligns with your preconceived notions, you accept it without scrutinizing its truthfulness. This video is an overreach, and without the information I've provided, many have accepted it uncritically, convinced that the governing body is concealing something by translating 'the sea of reeds' as the 'Red Sea.' However, their own publications disclose this information and explain their belief that the Israelites crossed at the Gulf of Suez, a view supported by numerous scholars. The Governing body might just be hiding a lot of things, but this is not one of them. This is actually very hilarious.
@@InnerWorldsNetwork-jz8mt agreed. Not new. Does it matter that much?
@@InnerWorldsNetwork-jz8mt Thank you for your comment. Nowhere in the video do I claim that this is new or original information. I even show that the Governing Body are aware of these facts but hide them from their adherents.
Interestingly, you boldly try to show of your "knowledge" of Bible scholarship and Bible geography. Then in the very next sentence claim that contemporary scholars have pointed out where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. Which serious Bible scholar believes that the Exodus happened as the Bible suggests???
I hear that there's no archaeological evidence for the Exodus anyway, whether it's the reed sea or the red sea. It's a good story, and I wonder if the original writers would be laughing at the idea of people insisting on taking it as literal history.
Same here.
Agree! If such place (evidences) exists should’ve been the World Heritage by now😅
That's what happens when one just believes things that fit their own narrative.
Do a simple RUclips search on Sodom and gemorrah, of Babylon, on Jerusalem, on biblical artifacts, on mount Sinai, on Noah's ark, on manuscripts, on Pharoah and Egypt.
Not only are these things written of in the bible, they even exist in atheist books, they exist in non believing books, they are written of in history books in public schools.
When a person considers a creator, a GOD that is the one who created all things.. and then considers the fact that all eill be judged for their lives they lived.. and let me not even bring up being judged for their very own sin... when a person considers these things and considers flesh vs spirit and holiness for worldliness...
Remember what's said... the flesh and carnally minded mankind will reject the truth to believe a lie. .
However what most dont truly realize is that, just because someone might deceive themselves...that in no way whatsoever changes what actually is.
Just a thought.
Lol read more
Oh puh lease... you think Egypt is fake?
There's a documentary on this by historian/explorer Albert Pin on Disney +. He goes to the area if could possibly be.
However, it can mean red, as in Kings 9 where Solomon made a fleet in Eilat on the Yam Suf, which is still on the red sea today.
Albert Lin, sorry, not Pin.
What about where the greek scriptures states " with the mouth one makes confession for confession " ( WestCott and Hort ) which the Bastardised NWT changes to " public declaration "
Totally changed the whole meaning .
I've got another point ( Bible not nwr ) God battling Leviathan and sending it deep under the earth.
Don't go down that rabbit hole . Seriously. The early Bible books were all written together - noticeable when you compare that with the Sun standing still ( Jericho ? )
The verb in question is "homologeo" (ὁμολογέω), literally it means "to speak the same, to speak together, to agree" and it is used with the meaning of "to confess", "to profess", "to admit", "to acknowledge", "to declare". Rendering "homologeo" as "publicly declare" in Romans 10:9, 10 is not a mistranslation, it's not a forced translation. What _is_ wrong (or at least incomplete) theologically is to apply the "public declaration" solely to the two affirmative answers to the questions the speaker asks of the baptism candidates near the conclusion of his talk at conventions and assemblies. In a general Christian context any occasion when a believer confesses, or publicly declares, their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and preaches the Gospel even in informal settings is an application of "homologeo" in the sense of Paul's words recorded in Romans 10:9, 10.
I recommend you watch Exodus patterns of evidence
Believe the Bible . These ppl are delusional.
Good stuff!! 💪🏼
I think there may also be a notable error with Acts 12:15 in most Bibles.
It is rather unfortunate that the same Koine Greek word is used to refer both to supernatural spirit messengers from God, as well as regular human messengers. This forces translators to examine the context to determine whether to render it as "angel" or "messenger".
I think the context strongly suggest the rendering of "messenger" at Acts 12:15. Here are two logical reasons to support this conclusion:
1. Given that the disciples considered the servant's claim that Peter was at the gate, to be extraordinary and unbelievable, it's quite contradictory to suppose they would offer the even more extraordinary suggestion that it was an angel.
2. The disciples would have known better than to think that an angel - a supernatural spirit messenger from God - could be barred from entering in their midst by a gate/door. An actual spirit messenger from God would have the ability to appear directly in their midst!
The more logical alternative is that they believed the imprisoned Peter was sending word to them VIA a human messenger and the servant misheard the messenger's introduction which included the name "Peter" and wrongly concluded it was Peter himself. This would explain the "his" in "his -angel- messenger". They were offering the alternative explanation that it was Peter's messenger - perhaps one he customarily used.
It is my belief that some very early translator, still having fresh in mind the account of Peter's angelic rescue just a few verses before, had his mind primed to erroneously render this particular messenger as "angel". Subsequent translators just followed in his footsteps without carefully considering its validity. After all, "angel" is technically a valid translation for the word. But a careful examination of the logics of the passage strongly suggests this rendering to be erroneous.
@@caribbeanman3379 This is interesting. I'll have a close look into it.
Where is this supposed "Reed Sea " located?
Interesting video. According to 1st century Christian belief the Hebrews crossed the "Red" (from "Ερυθρὰν") sea. (See Hebrews 11:29)
It would be even more of a sensational miracle in my opinion if the untrained Israelites with children crossed a swamp but the well trained military of Egypt drowned. 🤷♂️🤦♂️
And when you tell them about different translations they tell you not to be too dogmatic. Another one of their trademark sayings yet they are the very ones that are dogmatic like the name Jehovah. Many years ago they would say if it wasn't for them people wouldn't know God's name and now one of the Goof Ball members said on a pod cast that they really don't know what God's name is but they use what the majority of people think it is. They are so deceptive!!
@@ronweiland5991 Hmm interesting! Was a Governing Body member on a podcast?
This is gooooooooddddddd!
I wonder if it was a Tsunami?
Graham Phillips suggests in his book “Act of God” that it was a tsunami caused by the Thera volcanic eruption.
@@HeartfeltAwakening Well, there is no archaeological evidence of a mass crossing of the "Red Sea", of a group of people of the number the Bible describes wandering in the wilderness or of a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt. No serious scholar believes any of this happened as is described in the Bible.
You know the only reason Jehovah is used in the new testament don't you, to take the glory away from Jesus not to refer to him as a GOD and it's good to have you back
Thank you AKingdom4mypeople. This is a great point. YHWH does not appear in the New Testament but the JW leadership insert the word Jehovah in there to push their own agenda.
All it says is that it's the Sea near Baal Zephon. There's no mention of reeds or rushes or swamps. The Sea near Baal Zephon is the Red Sea. Be more careful in the future.
@@davidevans9992 You clearly weren't listening carefully... I'm not going to repeat myself but you can watch again if you want to / need to.
Yes, we're talking about Exodus 14 and 15. It's the sea near Baal Zephon. The body of water they're referring to is the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. It's not a marsh or swamp or reeds or weeds as the word seems to imply. Once you learn Hebrew, it will make perfect sense. It's confusing if you don't know Hebrew, but once you learn Hebrew, it's very easy. That Professor at Yale does not know Hebrew. I know she doesn't know because I do know. I'll tell you what she would have told you if she knew what she was talking about.
The good news is that Hebrew is very easy to learn. You only need about 1000 words to read about 90% of Tenakh. I'm not even good at languages, but Hebrew is very easy to learn. I highly recommend it. But for now, I can clear up the confusion about סוּף.
Firstly, although it is written in Hebrew, the origin of the word is foreign. I presume it's Egyptian, but I don't know. It is understood to mean Reed or Weed, but it's also understood that Reed or Weed is only the Semitic root of the word not its functional meaning. For instance, my name is David. That's a Hebrew word and its root is Beloved. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that people love me, it just means that my name is David. סוּף is similarly disappointing. The root of the foreign word is Reed or Weed, but it's a foreign word understood to mean Red in the context of the name of the Sea. Like I say, very disappointing. It doesn't imply anything about the physical characteristics of the Sea, it's just used as a name. But if the sea is named after Reeds or Papyrus, it is named after learning or teaching because the reed and papyrus symbolises the imparting of knowledge.
But סוּף is also a proper Hebrew word in its own right. The primative root of the Hebrew word סוּף is about coming to an end or ceasing to be. So it's possible Moses named it after that moment where they were trapped there.
So, although I obviously can't personally attest to the literal veracity of the historical claim, I can tell you for sure that there is no error in the translation. There is a lot of information let out about the conventions of the original languages, but the imagery conveyed in the English translation is much the same as the imagery conveyed in the original Hebrew.
You do still need to learn the Hebrew to get the full meaning of the story, however. I highly recommend learning Hebrew. The reward is infinitely greater than the effort.
@@davidevans9992 Thank you for your comment. Christine Hayes, a Yale professor in Hebrew Bible doesn't know Biblical Hebrew? I suggest you look up her CV before making such suggestions. To your other points, I'll just be repeating what I've said in the video already, so my only suggestion is you watch the video again to see the basis of the arguments made.
@@AnthonyMorrisReturns Well, Christine isn't what you think. She's a Sydney girl. The whole Yale thing with her is false advertising. IYKYK. She's not Jewish. I think she was born in America, but she's Aussie like me. She's not Jewish, and doesn't speak Hebrew. She had a bit of interest in... a particular thing... but never really studied Hebrew and knows next to nothing about it. I have actual knowledge, she just has bluff. I kid you not.
They found the crusty wheels , ,I've seen the underwater photographs , not a Reed in sight 😅 really hard to fake this one .
I think it's also important to to keep in mind that just because "Reed Sea" is the correct name, that doesn't necessarily mean the body of water was a shallow, reed-growing sea.
What if it was called "Reed Sea" because it was notable that the people in the area fashioned fishing rafts made of reeds? What if there was activity whether natural or man-made that resulted in times of the year when there would be a lot of reeds floating in the sea? What if there was a nearby marshy area that grew lots of reeds - maybe even in the distant past - and the sea was named after it?
Some names are misnomers. Some names have an explanation behind them that aren't obvious.
@@caribbeanman3379 You could be right. But why change the name altogether? Most people can't raise any of those questions you're raising because of the mistranslation.
@@AnthonyMorrisReturns I'm not saying it would be a good reason to not render it as "Reed Sea". I'm saying that the more accurate "Reed Sea" does not necessarily refute the notion that it was a normal deep sea.
@@caribbeanman3379 Noted. You make a very valid point.
Very interesting
Believe it or not. JWs now allowed conscience but only some not all things.
where's chaka? no new videos?
@@giddygiddy5619 Hey Giddy Giddy. Thanks for checking in on me. I'm still around - I've been dealing with some personal difficulties but will be back soon with some hopefully interesting videos
ruclips.net/video/u3viHpQBZwM/видео.html This is interesting of where Yahweh came from. It was a Sumerian god's name. This is a very good explanation.
Yikes, no more miracles, kind of takes the fun out of believing anything. Why bother with Jesus and the power he demonstrated. Move along, say the faith monitors.
Fear dramas and children indoctrination cartoons, added to shunning. Too much!
It's not an error if it's intentional. {RollSafe.jpg}