A peculiar variation championed (or was that chumpioned) by the late Gerald Waterhouse had particular significance attached to family names. Armstrong - he of the strong arm. God, Waterhouse famously observed, did not call someone named Peabody to be His apostle.Rabid Armstrongists continue this hallowed tradition. Robert on his blog states that the name Obama means "Son of Prophecy" in Hebrew. No doubt this gem will be shared widely as many conservative brethren try to make sense of the election of the first black president - and far beyond the pocket universe of COGdom wherever literally-inclined Bible believers gather. But consider these comments from an AW reader:
Name: obama
Origin: African Etymology
Meaning (no case): bending, leaning ...
The name Obama is said to be a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya. [WikiName]
Hebrew has nothing to do with anything unless one is Hebrew. And then it has nothing to do with anything for the Hebrew person... Waterhouse was sent to water the House of God, i.e. the church. More like pee on it... or perhaps hose it down and put out the fires of critical thinking. Tkach was a weaver. Weaving schemes and themes that signified nothing. Armstrong had a strong arm as in strong arming the brethren...
Rod is the Rod of Iron we all just know will force the love of God, truth and Church into people, or else. Weinland means "he who whines" because they both need to be in the witness protection program.
Flurry rhymes with slurry as in slurred speech. Graham means bland cracker designed to lessen sexual urges. Hinn means "he who hinders." Bush means "he who hears the voice of God through vegetation." Amen
Amen indeed!
37 comments:
What's in a name.
One has to observe that the Obama family had a state named for itself....AL-OBAMA.
Gerald Waterhouse did indeed micturate upon the church from a great height...great gushing torrents of metabolic waste matter.
Then of course, there was Stanley Rader,or should that be RAIDER?
Cheers,
Jorgheinz
Well, Dennis has pointed out on more than one occasion that the son of god is a really a misspelling of the astrological sun of god: - brings forth the sun at christmas, the son of god surrounded by 12 apostles and the sun of god surrounded by the 12 signs of the zodiac; it was the sun that was to die, etc.
Doesn't this prove that that all ancient religous societies spoke english, are hearts burn - burn with nuclear fusion; our god as a consuming fire is at our core, and our children proceed forth from the fires of hell!
Certain prophecies in the Bible show that Dan (as a serpent) was to leave a trail behind him, and it has been observed that the children of this tribe did, in fact, leave their mark in Palestine early in their history. These Danites began the habit of naming cities and rivers after the name of their father, Dan.
Now let us observe that the sons of Dan have continued to do this same thing ever since. Remember, we have noticed that the people of this tribe were a great seafaring
people. “Why did Dan remain in ships? – the inspired prophetess Deborah had asked.
Even at that early date, many of the Danites were sailing the Mediterranean, looking for treasure and adventure.
Have the children of Dan left their mark or trail on their route from the Promised
Land to the country which they now inhabit?
There is ample evidence to prove that these adventuresome Danites had early exerted quite an influence in the regions of the Black Sea.
In order for one to get to the Black Sea by ship, he must first pass from the
Mediterranean into the Aegean Sea; from the Aegean, he must pass through the DarDANelles in order to reach the Black Sea. If one were to walk counterclockwise from
the east end of the Black Sea, he would pass by the mouth of the following rivers by the
time he got completely around to the west side of the Black Sea: (1) Don, (2) Donets, (3) Dnieper, (4) Dniester, and (5) Danube Rivers.
If one will follow the DANube River in its westerly or north-westerly course, it will take him upstream into the heart of Europe. From here, if one leaves the Danube and takes a somewhat northerly direction when he gets to the point where the Danube flows through Vienna, Austria, he will come to DANzig, a city situated on the Baltic coast of
North-central Poland. If one continues to follow the coast of the Baltic Sea, in a westward direction, he will soon come to DENmark (meaning Dan's mark). Following the coastline
still further west-to-southwest from DENmark, one soon arrives at a city in Northern
France call DUNkirk (meaning Dan's Church). From Dunkirk one can cross the English
Channel to the British Isles where he will encounter many scores of cities, rivers and bays with the name of Dan, Den, Din, Don, or Dun somewhere included in them.
All over the British Isles, one will find this name, showing that these Danites had traversed the British
Isles at a very early date. In some instances this root word "Dan" may be used as a prefix, or as a suffix, or it may even occur in the middle of a word.
It is in Ireland, however, where one will notice the largest number of these words with some form of the word "Dan" in them. DUNgiven is the name of a town not far from Belfast, North Ireland.
There is also another very interesting thing about this name of Dan. It is found
almost exclusively on rivers, and lakes or along the coastlines of Europe. This is again evidence that the people of Dan were, as the Bible indicates, a seafaring people. They have never been the mountaineering or Alpine type. They are always found near a river, lake or sea.
Bear in mind that there were no vowels written in the Hebrew language. The basic
part of this word when the vowel is dropped is DN. In different European lagnuages one will find a different vowel inserted in the word "Dan" between the letters "d" and "n".
Gerald Waterhouse (among others) also noted in the late 1980's that Joseph Tkach's last name meant "weaver" in Russian.
He was "weaving the brethren together," we were told.
Well, we saw how prophetic THAT was....
It's amazing that people in the various Churches of God just accept this doctrine, yet really don't understand where it came from or even question the veracity of it. It just goes to show that ministers in these churches hold up the teachings of men above the teachings of God. 1 Tim 1:4 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith."
"Barack" is semitic;comes from Hebrew "Barak" which means "to bless"(verb);"blessing"(noun),and in the Bible many times...."Hussein" is semitic, means "good, handsome"....14 presidents had semitic names...American heroes also had semitic names....
The following excerpt from my unpublished essay,"My reflections of the Worldwide Church of God - 1972 in Prophecy! God's Practical Joke?" is relevant to this discussion:
In December, 1968, I received my first doses of traveling evangelist Gerald Waterhouse. At a bible study on December 4, I learned World Tomorrow prophecies such as “Job will straighten out the cities” and “Noah will take the job of solving the race problems”. On December 7 (a date that shall live in Worldwide Church infamy), we had a combined church service with other churches at a dark and dingy old rental hall on Eastern Avenue in Baltimore. Reading my sermon notes from this occasion over 30 years later reveal a manipulative message that I now realize was intended to extend control over the peoples’ minds. Waterhouse preaches “God’s people are different from society. The only way you can be out of a society is for God to take you out….God has to take us to a place (of safety) to mold us into the right society”. Waterhouse later preaches, “There will be no rebels in the World Tomorrow. By the end of the work, all the people who stayed loyal will be taken to a place of safety”.
END OF EXCERPT
Editor's note:
Waterhouse said, “There will be no rebels in the World Tomorrow" - Gavin and Dennis Diehl, this means you!
Waterhouse said, "By the end of the work, all the people who stayed loyal will be taken to a place of safety”.
To be honest, what the profit Waterhouse really should have said, "By the end of the work, all the people who stayed loyal will die, and probably die very broke from giving multiple tithes, offerings, holy day offerings, special offerings, emergency offerings, and yes, lets not forget the all important building fund, so the Tkaches and their cronies can dine with the classes and live the life style of the very rich and famous"
Richard
O'Bama. Irish?
To "Believe it or not"...if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Some however would want DNA evidence to be willing to say it is a duck. Lacking the DNA evidence they are willing to accept the most recent historians views as long as the historian is approved by most of the established community of historians. That, to them is also conclusive evidence...that it is a duck.
I have a lot of books (some rare) concerning British Israel ism and, while none present DNA evidence (no history really does), the evidence is overwhelming as far as I am concerned. But everyone has to decide for himself.
And Lo, before the Time of Jacob's Trouble the Lord shall smite the Republican Party and they shall fall before Mabama of the Lake City.
And when they bessech the Lord, saying, "What have we done to incur thy wrath O Lord?"
The Lord shall say"
"Thou hast left thy first principles;
Limited government- thou hast brought an increase in government!
Personal liberty- thou hast raped the Constitution and birthed the Patriot Act!
Decreased spending and a balanced budget- thou hast plunged the people into debt, spending like a drunken Phoenician!
Peace- thou hast plagued the world with your interventionism and unconstitutional war!
And Lo, the Republicans did not heed the Lord as they didn't in 2006, for a veil was cast over their eyes; they muttered of the neccessity of their acts because of the Great War on Ishamael, and they lost all credibility in the eyes of the independents and libertarians.
Paul Ray
Believe it or not said...
Prove it using an expert that was not a Herbalite!
What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to
some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity...
Once Tkach called himself "This mad Russian"
Blogger Richard said...
Gerald Waterhouse (among others) also noted in the late 1980's that Joseph Tkach's last name meant "weaver" in Russian.
He was "weaving the brethren together," we were told.
............................
Herbie also said in his last phone sermon to the church (cult) that wolves would come into the church from outside it and devour the flock.
WRONG HERBIE! You picked the man that turned out to be the "wolf." So much for God leading you....
What gets me is that these associates within COGism just don't look to the past for those hard answers. There focus is on the future but never learning from the past. That makes these folks certifiable idiots!
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein
""Few will take the time to realise..."
There is a reason for that.
Barak's younger brother Al Obama was found living in the Amerian South between Georgia and Mississippi.
A cousin, Rama Dama Obama was found living in Medina.
Dali Lama Obama was found living in Tibet
..and Teresa Mama Obama was found helping the poor in India.
"In Hebrew the word, Bama means Son of Prophecy..."
Actually...
Hebrew bama.
In ancient Israel or Canaan, a shrine built on an elevated site. For Canaanites the shrines were devoted to fertility deities, to the Baals, or to the Semitic goddesses called the Asherot. The shrines often included an altar and a sacred object such as a stone pillar or wooden pole. One of the oldest known high places, dating from c. 2500 BC, is at Megiddo. The Israelites also associated elevated places with the divine presence, and after conquering Canaan they used Canaanite high places to worship Yahweh (God). Later the Temple of Jerusalem on Mount Zion became the only accepted high place.
Of course none of this has to do with anyone's name. "Ro Bert" in Hebrew comes from the root word "to COGitate" This when COG types look for meaning where there is none on topics that are Biblically meaningless
But you can play Hebrew boy all you want.
"...is he the Son of Prophecy that we have been waiting for?
Robert, Church of God and Messianic News blog, Nov. 6"
Prolly not. Evidently mixing Messianic Jews with NT ideas and meaningless meanings leads to more goofy religious ideas or is more mental masturbation, which we all know leads to blindness.
Oh yes, the other side of the issue.
Did you notice Mr. Obama's Chief of Staff has the last name Emanuel?
Let the Antichrist speculation begin. Well, continue -- I heard a man in a Baptist church several months put that label on Mr. Obama.
Actually, I find that in the Hebrew 'Barak' means 'lightning' and 'Obama" means 'of the high place'and remember some of the old guard is now claiming that he is "antichrist" so when they figure out the Hebrew, they may head for Petra.
Wonder who will be in charge there if even half of the 500 COGs leave us?
You people who still believe in British Israelism: Do you subscribe to the Germanic Tribes theory, or the Celtic theory?
Also, what is wrong with the process of peer review? There is very good reason why the BI theory is not mainstream. And that reason is not that it is somehow being suppressed by Satan's people. The majority of really educated historians simply do not find it to be credible. Fresh evidence, as it is becoming available today, is certainly not doing any favors to BI, either.
For a church to base their "gospel message" on such a theory, and to attempt to use this as a primary tool to warn the world, is absurd.
BB
"Evidently mixing Messianic Jews with NT ideas and meaningless meanings leads to more goofy religious ideas"
I keep saying Armstrongite refugees are fleeing the Messianic Jews en masse. The mistake the MJs are making, is in letting the former cult-members in. Robert and the late Jesse Ancona's articles are proof enough as to why.
"fleeing TO the Messianic Jews en masse"
Don't snack and type!
Byker Bob said:
"There is very good reason why the BI theory is not mainstream. And that reason is not that it is somehow being suppressed by Satan's people. The majority of really educated historians simply do not find it to be credible."
BB, "educated historians" don't WANT to find it to be credible! If they did, they would have to accept the Bible as history. They don't want that either.
And they would have to consider God's intervention in history. And they certainly don't want that! You cannot expect academics to find something that they are absolutely adamantly opposed to finding. I deal with this all the time.
First rule of "academia": If it has anything to do with "God", it can't be true, period. Not allowed.
"After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices. Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, but they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism—the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons."
Are you SURE you're a member of the Worldwide Church of God, Larry? Because you certainly don't sound like one!
Gag me with a spoon, Larry! British Israelism is not found in the Bible at all, in any way, shape or form, making that theory and the Bible mutual exclusives. Associating it with the Bible, will, of course cause educated historians to mock the Bible, just as other alleged Christian beliefs like a 6,000 year old earth is guaranteed to give some scientists a good belly laugh.
The Bible does require that the nation of Israel would exist at the time of the end, which of course it has since 1948. The three tribes which lived in Judah, while they have been scattered around the world in a diaspora, have done a fairly good job of maintaining ethnic purity for the past 2,000 years, as well as preserving the customs and traditions of the Tanakh.
The English speaking peoples around the world have maintained no such ethnic or cultural purity. If you have even the most basic grasp of English history, you must know that your typical British people are just as much the byproduct of a melting pot as we are here in the USA. Ever hear of Picts, Celts, and Normans? They're all part of the mix along with HWA's precious Angles and Saxons.
Mainstream Christians have a much more plausable theory, one that is less subject to refutation by historians. They acknowledge Yahweh's promises to Abraham that Abraham's children are to be as numerous as the sands. But, they also understand that Christians are Abraham's children, through Jesus Christ, Abraham's descendant. When you think about it, this is much more spiritually meaningful than anything we ever understood as WCG members. English speaking peoples have been predominantly Christian nations, and have been responsible for disseminating knowledge of the Christian faith around the world since the Bible was translated into English and mass produced in the 1600s. This is still very much ongoing today, although our current era is often referred to as being the post-Christian era for numerous reasons and trends which began back in the 1960s.
Prophetic meanings today are still subject to interpretation, but it is much more intellectually honest to start by conceding up front that BI is just a theory, based on speculation and assumption and not definitively provable. You can still arrive at your same comfort level in terms of prophecy, if that's where your Bible study takes you. You just don't need blatant rubbish, such as BI, a theory which turns educated people off towards the Bible and Christianity. It's not just the educated people, either. Your typical man on the street can look around him and see with his own eyes that we are a mongrel people, not the tribes of Manasseh or Ephraim. On the other hand, an atheist walking down that same street is going to see (and possibly be offended by!) many Christian churches, evidence that could support our being spiritual Israel.
BB
The reason the xCOGs cannot reject BI is because their whole reason for existence would crumble. Their entire "warning message" is based on this extra-Biblical pet theory which Armstrong adopted.
Funny how Armstrong's theology mostly comes down to what books were onhand at the Oregon Public Library at the time of his "conversion".
"On the other hand, an atheist walking down that same street is going to see (and possibly be offended by!) many Christian churches, evidence that could support our being spiritual Israel."
Specious evidence, that speaks very much to an us-vs-them mentality Bob.
I keep telling you, you have GOT to stop watching TBN!!! I can see your brain function decaying, post by post, because of it!
Wow! I merely pointed out the lack of objectivity in academic circles and created a firestorm!!!
Some of you are way too opinionated.
As for British-Israelism, I have my own opinion, which I have never shared on this board.
Ah, shoot, Aggie! TBN? Brain deterioration? I just about choked on my southwestern jalapeno bagel laughing about that.
The comment about the churches was almost an afterthought as I revised my rough draft. I put it in there because I was pondering a number of viewpoints, and knew it would elicit a barnburner of a comment from ya! Thanks for not disappointing!
Speaking of TBN, ever read any David Barton?
BB
"As for British-Israelism, I have my own opinion, which I have never shared on this board."
Which you "have never shared"? I can cite any number of half a dozen of your BI-supporting comments you've spewed during your tenure here, Larry.
You still haven't answered my question, that I have been asking, ever since you reared your ugly preaching head here: Given that so much of what you say is directly contrary to what the Worldwide Church of God leadership claims it now believes, how are you a "member in good standing", when you hold such apparently "contrary" views to the face they present to the secular, protestant, and evangelical worlds?
You are living proof, Larry, that the church has not changed a single bit, Senior and Junior and Weazell's assertions to the contrary. At least not on the ground, amongst the membership.
Byker Bob asks, "Speaking of TBN, ever read any David Barton?"
Old buddy, not sure just where you're going there, but David Barton's ideas have been oft-challenged. Go to www.au.org (the website of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) and key in Barton's name in their search box, and see the various items that pop up.
You definitely need to be very discriminating when reading David Barton. I've been on those websites you recommended, and have digested the materials there. That's part of my trouble shooting modus operandi. My conclusion was that David's religious zeal has caused him to use overkill, leading him to include questionable or marginal materials in his thesis.
Although his overall work is flawed, this does not mean that every individual "fact" which he cites is necessarily erroneous. Ultimately, there are enough facts in his books, verifiable from primary sources, to present quite a different picture of the founding fathers from that which you will find in the latest (revisionist)school textbooks.
Why do I bother with this? It ties in with a point which Larry was attempting to make about intellectual honesty and belief, and the comment about TBN causing brain atrophy. A neutral seeker of the truth is going to pick up flack from both sides of these believer/nonbeliever issues. Generally, people don't want you on their team unless you totally agree with the agenda presented by their side. And, each side wants to lump you with the other, often because they already consider themselves to be the neutral seekers without agenda!
It gets weird sometimes.
BB
"I put it in there because I was pondering a number of viewpoints, and knew it would elicit a barnburner of a comment from ya! Thanks for not disappointing!
Do I detect a faint whiff of eau de incitement in that admission, BB?
Speaking of TBN, ever read any David Barton?"
Boulton, yes, Barton not so much. I recommend David Boulton's writings highly.
"A neutral seeker of the truth is going to pick up flack from both sides of these believer/nonbeliever issues."
Based on your admonitions of rabble-rousing amongst believers when you weren't one, your "confessions of guilt" to the contrary, Bob, I get the distinct impression you're trying to play the same schtick, only from the other side this time.
Hey Seeker, you mentioned DNA evidence in your above post.
In the minds of folks like "believe it or not" this will no doubt constitute irrefutable evidence for their cherished theory of British Israelism: just swap two letters around and DNA becomes DAN!
And that's all the "proof" these simple-minded people need!!
And then we wonder why guys like Ron Weinland still have a loyal following!!!
"Show me a person who can be convinced of the literal existence of an invisible god who can make donkeys talk, and I will show you someone who will fall for anything."
BB said,
"A neutral seeker of the truth is going to pick up flack from both sides of these believer/nonbeliever issues. Generally, people don't want you on their team unless you totally agree with the agenda presented by their side. And, each side wants to lump you with the other, often because they already consider themselves to be the neutral seekers without agenda!"
Byker Bob, that is a brilliant analysis of the problem, and quite correct! People with agendas are often completely in denial. Their minds are not open.
'Show me a person who can be convinced of the literal existence of an invisible god who can make donkeys talk, and I will show you someone who will fall for anything'
A God who can bring someone back from the dead can easily make a donkey talk.
Read ;Who Moved the Stone'
Aggie,
"I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked the Beatles. I asked Timothy Leary, and he couldn't help me either. They call me the Seeker, cause I've been searching low and high. Ain't going to get the answers, til' the day I die"
~The Seeker, Townshend/Daltry (the Who)
Kind of says it all, along with the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again"
If you'll indulge me for a moment, my own paraphrase of "The Seeker" might go something like this: "I asked Herbie Armstrong, I asked Sonny Barger. I asked brother Darwin, and he couldn't help me either...."
No rebel rousing these days. Just lookin' for some truth.
BB
Anonymous 7:47 wrote:
"A God who can bring someone back from the dead can easily make a donkey talk."
And in MY private emotional fantasy world I wish that flying pink fairies can whisk their magic wands around and heal people dying of cancer, stop wars, and keep extreme left-wing liberals from winning the presidency – but that doesn’t make it objectively true!
In philosophical terms, this is the classic “primacy of existence versus the primacy of consciousness” situation – and you want to believe in the primacy of consciousness, because then reality will obey your each and every emotional whim. “I wish it (subjective consciousness), and reality (objective existence) must obey” kind of NONthinking.
Anon, can't you see that you have no proof whatsoever for the wild ASSUMPTIONS you make? Of course, in YOUR invisible spirit realm anything and everything is possible, objective reality as we all know and experience it breaks down, and you finally get your wish: a world where everything is meaningless because there exist no laws that govern anything.
But this is the fantasy of a young child!
Morison's book is from the 1930's, and it contains the standard circular reasoning that is endemic in Christian apologetics: it ASSUMES everything written in the Bible is true. And then once you start out with that massive assumption, then you can end up thinking you've found "irrefutable prove" for what, in the final analysis, you have to accept on faith, without any valid proof whatsoever.
The serious apologists (such as Blaise Pascal) down through history finally come to this conclusion, that there are no real objective reasons or evidence for the Christian faith, only subjective private ones, such as standard “testimonials” are built on.
If you want to believe something on faith alone, then that’s your right, but don’t try to fool everybody here and claim you have objective evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
"If you want to believe something on faith alone, then that’s your right, but don’t try to fool everybody here and claim you have objective evidence for the resurrection of Christ."
Hell's bells, they don't even have subjective evidence for the resurrection of "Christ" !!
Post a Comment