ayinba1:

@David

you too,, sooooo predictable!

I never see you address anything. Just floating around like a hypocrite.

Tasma:
It's quite sad that meaningful, intelligent threads always tend to get dragged through all this aimless rambling. No wonder the original poster hasn't been back here for a while. The key points made by the poster stand, he's assertion that the Bible is bound to contain many flaws due to the hand of man and hence that he cannot base he's faith on this "imperfect compilation". Where is the confusion in that? He has not said he has nothing to learn from the Bible he has only said that he reads it with a discerning spirit and takes the message from it with being too involved in the "literalness" (my own word!) of it. A poster keeps going on about him saying that he's faith is not in the Bible. It's obvious that he means he does not bother about the correctness of every word in the Bible but simply reads it in a spiritual way. Is this so hard to understand? If we can admit that errors may have occurred during translations of the Bible from one language to another is it hard to imagine several errors that may have crept in via compilations, editing, intentional manipulation by various Kings and Clerics.

Lastly the question really to ask is that does the fact that a story is not literally correct mean that it cannot carry a message? I can write a completely fictional book that still carries a powerful message to people. Does one have to insist on the Bible being 100% accurate to back up it's usefulness to humankind? If anything insisting the Bible is flawless only leaves room for all sorts of critics to argue endlessly about this, useful time that can sent actually spreading the message of love and care among human beings. The stance that the Bible can only be interpreted properly with the holy spirit has really nothing to do with this argument. Any religious book has a profound message for the reader if one reads with the right spirit, heck a non-religious book may have a profound impact on a person's life if read with the right spirit. Does this mean that the book is literally totally flawless and 100% correct? Of course not! Would be nice if we could reduce this endless arguing for the sake of it and have the courage to admit others might have a point even if it's something we don't feel disposed to agreeing with.

This is pure wisdom. Reading the above post amidst all the rumblings in this thread is like finding an oasis in the desert.
I completely agree with everything that Tasma said in the above post.

olabowale:

Forget theology: look at the Bible itself, in its purity, if you can find it. Then compare it with Qur'an, in Arabic which is readily available, around the world. Interestingly, over a million people alive today commit the Qur'an to memory. And many more a greater portion leading to almost 100%. then there is still more people, in degree of memorization. Even my mother who at her old age became muslim, must at least know by now how to recite Surah Fatiha, in Arabic. Plus i might say, other short surahs; Iklas, etc.

Thats what you need to examine. Not theology. The Children of israel, in their yashivas try to their Torah, whatever they think is original, including the talmuth, and others, are being committed to memory, in order to preserve them in originals. Do you have this in Hebrew, or Aramaic about the Bible?

@Olabowale
This thread is not about comparing the Bible with the Koran. Why turn every thread into a religious war? The fact the Bible is not perfect does not make the Koran perfect! Please take the Koran out of this thread!
Start another thread about the perfection or the purity of the Koran and I will give you my take on the Koran. Just be sure you can handle the Truth, before you start the Tread!

@Pilgrim.1
Thanx for correcting my typo, that kind of typo can be really embarrassing . I see you guys have really grown this thread, i am sorry i have not been able to comment this is due to the fact that i don't have internet access during weekends. Meanwhile i would read through the posts a respond accordingly

@Justcool: « #161 on: Today at 12:13:49 AM »

@Olabowale
This thread is not about comparing the Bible with the Koran. Why turn every thread into a religious war? The fact the Bible is not perfect does not make the Koran perfect! Please take the Koran out of this thread!
Start another thread about the perfection or the purity of the Koran and I will give you my take on the Koran. Just be sure you can handle the Truth, before you start the Tread!

This thread is about religion. And it is spelled Qur'an. Your hypocracy is well known, by your writing K instead of Q! There is no religious war from me. I am having a dialogue with Pilgrim. She is not saying that am at war with her. I know that I am not.

Please tell us where Qur'an is not perfect; I want verses and chapters. But Qur'an is in Pure Arabic. Unless you are a specialist in this language, then you will have a very weak argument to present. My understanding of Qur'an is not from the English or Yoruba interpretation of what the writer thinks in his knowledge means, wen translated in these languages. For example in Surah Fatiha, vere 4 reads in Arabic; "Maaliki yaa umi diin". Maalik means King, Master, Owner, etc.

You will see that an author in his language can only chose just one. yaa umi diin means the day of Judgement. So you can see that in the reading of this simple verse, in arabic, a reader will have the complete meaning in his mind.
He will know that Allah is not just the only King, but also the Only Master and Owner of this very day. Now tell me you see impefection in Qur'an, again?

If a Christian says there is imperfection in his/her Bible, I have to at least from the face of it agree with that statement, since i am not a christian.

If a muslim says that the Qur'an is perfect, I now challenge you to read through it, and give me one essence of imperfection. This is a challenge to you. Please dont take it as a religious war, because it is simply a challenge.

@olabowale
Your penchant for wanting to turn every thread in to a Christian/Islam debate or a Bible/koran comparision is really not enjoyed or appreciated by most Nairalanders. You only end up disrupting the thread. You can always start a new thread to pour out your vexations of the koran.

DavidDylan:


Here is my belief:

- Is the bible inspired by God - YES!

- Does it contain possible errors in transcribing, translation, copying e.t.c . ? - YES!

- Do those "errors" nullify the spiritual import of the bible? - Only if u're desperately looking for an excuse not to believe anyway.

Brilliant summary. Now this is the kind of response the gives room for intelligent discourse and not the provocative, blank and unsubstantiated responses i have been receiving.
some questions i would like to as those screaming about the perfection of the bible are these:
What if the catholic church had not included the old testament in the bible (like they decided to exclude several other books regarded as scripture by the early christians) would you still be defending the old testament if you came across them outside christian literature?
The other question i would also like to act is this: on what premise do you assume that the catholic church did a divine Job of compiling the bible under the guidiance of Emperor constantine who had political motives?
Did jesus christ promise us a canon of scripture or the holy spirit to guide us?
What evidence do we have why did Martin luther have to edit the bible to produce the one commonly used today?
Why is the ethopian bible substantially different from the one that originated from the catholic church? ( Christianity was practiced and accepted in ethopia centuries before the roman catholic church).
How relevant is the old testment doctrine to christian living today?
Why is God in the old testament so different from the God Jesus spoke about in the new testament?
Why did Jesus say all those that "all who came before me where robbers and thieves"? John 10:8
Why do we have so many versions and interpretations of the bible?
Why do we have so many church denominations all claiming to be divinely inspired?
Why is the church not one?
Why is the greatest commandment of Jesus christ (Love your neigbhour as your self) not being preached or actively encouraged and practised by most so called christian (chrsit like) churches?

The questions are endless but i beleive that those of us who truly believe in the true gospel of our Lord Jesus christ and have genuinely sat down to study this Gospel independent of church doctrine and truly want to be christ like christians should start asking questions and start examining every thing we base our faith on (including the bible) we should search our souls and ask if we are truly keeping his commandments. For me the bible contains a lot of the word of God and wisdom that i can profit from. It also contains a lot of eternal truths and most especially it reveals to us the true gospel of jesus _{for those who want to see it} unfortunately most christians are bogged down by church dogma and they really can't tell the difference between what christ is saying and what their pastors are saying. I submit that he source of this factionalization in the christian faith is the bible it self because it was not compiled with the right motive in mind in the first instance. But then again a lot of chritians would fail to realize it and label me as a syncretic.

@pilgrim.1
I feel compelled to address two points you keep hammering about not for your sake cos i know you know better but for the sake of other readers who are following this thread so i am not mis-understood. (The reason being that i have observed that pilgrim.1 argues for the sake of winning arguments whether her stand point is wrong or right doesn't really matter as long as she can box you into a corner, make you quote yourself out of context and give an impression that she as superior arguments or logic. Once she achieves this she is happy whether she is right or wrong) My dear sister, forums like this are meant for us to share knowledge and gain from each other and not necessarily prove to every boody that you know better than them.
back to the issue at stake you keep on hammering about the 300,000 errors detected in the king James translation of the bible. This remains a statement of fact what you should have added to that statement like David rightly observed is that the errors were not substantial enough to significantly change the message the bible is passing across( even that is debateble in some instances) Even the custodians of the King James version have acknowledged the errors and that is the primary reason why the New King James version was written. So stop trying to be more catholic than the pope. That aside i have a Stong's bible concordance based on the King James version and i can personally attest to hundreds of translation errors. On the other statement you keep hammering on that i said "my faith is not in the bible" i think that is just semantics calculated at giving the impression to other readers who have not been following my posts well that i do not believe inthe bible. For clearity of pupose and for the benefit of other readers i would explain my position further. The bible as been raised into the position of an Idol through church dogma and even though it was never given to us by christ ( it was put together by catholic bishops) the christian faith as been wrongly tied around it even though the early christians never used it and it was not sent to us to be used in the form it is in by God or Christ himself. When i say my faith is not in the bible it does not mean i don't believe the bible. My faith is simply not in it but it s in The true Gospel of Our lord Jesus christ and his love for us all. So please don't confuse faith in God/ Jesus with faith in a book that that was put together by mere mortal men. Personally i think it is blasphemous to call a book with such imperfections "the undiluted word" of a perfect God. My position is this whilst as christians it is profitable for us to learn from the bible with should read it with a discerning mind and test the spirit of whatever we read if it conforms to the spirit of Christ before accepting. IF we don't do this Demons like Rev King would be able to Justify slaughtering Church members from the bible based on what Moses did or what elisha did with the forty two children that mocked him. The question is what would Christ do?

@KunleOshob,

I was hoping to stay out of this thread for just one reason - those who assume a super-spiritual high that anything "pilgrim.1" says is deliberately miscalculated and misrepresented in order to say all sorts against my person. This is not new - it has happened so many times in the past and continues to happen; but my one focus has been to face issues and not persons, and I think it is unfair to allege things against me every single time when you really have not been able to address issues.

The first question I asked about your faith being a "Biblical faith or not" was because I knew from the onset that you were leading a logic which would turn out to be something you can't handle. That has been the consistent point I tried to singulalrly point out. Three things have resulted from that: (a) the implications emerged exactly as I pointed out; (b) I also asked what books you would assume were authentic and which were not; (c) because so many people refused to see what I was pointing to, I was called all sorts of names.

I wonder why this is always the attitude that people have to take, not because it would seem they are looking for answers; but because where these are vacant, the same people turn again to the gimmick of alleging things that they cannot sustain. Let me show you just a few.

@Kunle,

These are a few of what I'm trying to point out:

KunleOshob:

@pilgrim.1
I feel compelled to address two points you keep hammering about not for your sake because i know you know better but for the sake of other readers who are following this thread so i am not mis-understood. (The reason being that i have observed that pilgrim.1 argues for the sake of winning arguments whether her stand point is wrong or right doesn't really matter as long as she can box you into a corner, make you quote yourself out of context and give an impression that she as superior arguments or logic. Once she achieves this she is happy whether she is right or wrong) My dear sister, forums like this are meant for us to share knowledge and gain from each other and not necessarily prove to every boody that you know better than them.

You actually misrepresent me here, Kunle. Every single time I have ever tried to present my view and anyone calls my attention to them, I have take a look again and shared what I suppose may be correct or wrong in inference; where I was mistaken, I also pointed that out. To allege this against me is really unreasonable and is the reason why I wonder at all if you are interested to share anything.

KunleOshob:

back to the issue at stake you keep on hammering about the 300,000 errors detected in the king James translation of the bible. This remains a statement of fact what you should have added to that statement like David rightly observed is that the errors were not substantial enough to significantly change the message the bible is passing across( even that is debateble in some instances) Even the custodians of the King James version have acknowledged the errors and that is the primary reason why the New King James version was written. So stop trying to be more catholic than the pope.

Another canard. First, I'm not being more catholic than anybody. I have heard so many people allege that there are 300,000 errors in the KJV, and every single time I ask such people whether they are just saying it by rote or have checked it out for themselves, I am rebuffed without an answer provided.

Second, KunleOshob, I am not one of those whom you discourteously wrote off with "ignorance" - for I already knew about the errors in translations and version before my conversion: I have also posted links where I discussed this very issue early this year. But what you have been holding unto was not actually errors in translations, but complaints about what portions of Scripture you cannot accept as "scripture" as a 'Christian'. To this end, I asked you which books in your own canon are authentic, but what answer have you provided to that question, Kunle?

You see, many people here were not careful to see these things, for which they consequently accused me of all sorts. No worries, if no one is concerned about these two distinctives, what is my wahala there? Afterall I asked this very question from the onset, but no cogent answers were offered.

KunleOshob:

That aside i have a Stong's bible concordance based on the King James version and i can personally attest to hundreds of translation errors. On the other statement you keep hammering on that i said "my faith is not in the bible" i think that is just semantics calculated at giving the impression to other readers who have not been following my posts well that i do not believe inthe bible.

Excuse me, Kunle - if anyone was trying to be so unnecessarily tedious with my simple question, it was you! I never put that bold in your mouth, for not at any time did I ask whether you "worship" the Scriptures. If your faith was not in the Bible, has that changed any fact that you are questioning the BIBLE itself all this while? If you actually believe in the Bible, why has that been so difficult for you to demonstrate all along and yet easily and flimsily asking questions that you have not yourself answered?

KunleOshob:

For clearity of pupose and for the benefit of other readers i would explain my position further. The bible as been raised into the position of an Idol through church dogma and even though it was never given to us by christ ( it was put together by catholic bishops) the christian faith as been wrongly tied around it even though the early christians never used it and it was not sent to us to be used in the form it is in by God or Christ himself. When i say my faith is not in the bible it does not mean i don't believe the bible. My faith is simply not in it but it s in The true Gospel of Our lord Jesus christ and his love for us all. So please don't confuse faith in God/ Jesus with faith in a book that that was put together by mere mortal men.

Kunle, I never asked you if your faith was in the Bible - please refrain from this duplicity and go back and read my question! You are making noise here about things you introduced that I never once asked! This is so, so hideous.

KunleOshob:

Personally i think it is blasphemous to call a book with such imperfections "the undiluted word" of a perfect God. My position is this whilst as christians it is profitable for us to learn from the bible with should read it with a discerning mind and test the spirit of whatever we read if it conforms to the spirit of Christ before accepting. IF we don't do this Demons like Rev King would be able to Justify slaughtering Church members from the bible based on what Moses did or what elisha did with the forty two children that mocked him. The question is what would Christ do?

I'll tell you what Christ would do. Be bold to show us which books of the Bible are authentic in your own canon and which are not - then I shall show you what Christ Himself would do!

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,
The first question I asked about your faith being a "Biblical faith or not" was because I knew from the onset that you were leading a logic which would turn out to be something you can't handle. That has been the consistent point I tried to singulalrly point out. Three things have resulted from that: (a) the implications emerged exactly as I pointed out; (b) I also asked what books you would assume were authentic and which were not; (c) because so many people refused to see what I was pointing to, I was called all sorts of names.

My dear there is absolutely nothing i can't handle cos i did my home work well before my original post( most of my posers are still yet to be answered) the onus is on those who believe the divinity of the bible to prove to us that it is truly God's undiluted word. Before i started the thread i was quite aware of the impression most "christians" have of the bible even though they know so little about it's origins and history. On Asking specifically what books i would assume are authentic, the question does not give room for an accurate answer. I won't mention books in particular cos i have not read every single book word for word but i know for a fact even within the individual books parts of them might have been corrupted and not neccessarily the whole book. For instance there is this arguments amongst theologians who the real author of the Torah was since one of the books recorded the demise of Moses the assumed writer of the five books. How is it possible that moses writes about his own end. Even from the writing patterns of various books in the bible it was observed that more than one writer wrote quite a number of books in the bible. The reason for this is not clear. The reason could be men have been corrupting scripture since early old testament time and using it to control their fellow men.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

But then again a lot of chritians would fail to realize it and label me as a syncretic.

To be fair to others, there's only one person who has used that word ('syncretism') to address this fundamental concern in this thread - pilgrim.1. I'm not aware about "a lot of Christians" who have labelled you as you allege. Which makes me wonder that you guys are not manly enough to address issues, but would make every effort to be so surreptitious. Could I ask why?

You had asked me to refrain from using that term in describing what you're inclining to; I acquisced, but then I wonder why you would bring that up again as if it was a blasphemy I was commiting against KunleOshob? Please try and understand something here - it's no big deal to check the term and its application from some helpful sources:

[list]Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. The term may refer to attempts to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.[/list]

Who are the "lot of christians" that have been labelling you as you alleged?

Anyhow, I've tried to help you delineate the real import of your concerns. Since this is not helping you and yet you have no answers to your own concerns and questions, I've decided to leave this issue for you. It's your world, and since you have been using the same Bible to argue other doctrines in other threads, I wonder what kind of double standards you were holding by questioning the same thing you had appealed to! This whole thing drew my attention only because you are the very person who asked me to not add to or substract from God's Word - but here you are doing the direct opposite of what you advised!! That was why I asked that initial question on page 1 of this thread, and I shall note your attitude to the Scriptures henceforth when you try to use the same Bible to argue out doctrines in other threads.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:

On Asking specifically what books i would assume are authentic, the question does not give room for an accurate answer. I won't mention books in particular because i have not read every single book word for word but i know for a fact even within the individual books parts of them might have been corrupted and not neccessarily the whole book.

If there is no "room" (?) for an accurate answer and you haven't read every single book, what is the substance to your assertions then? How is it that people just make these assertions without having checked for themselves? Thsi was why I was wondering that you're just repeating from others what you assume by rote!

pilgrim.1:

I'll tell you what Christ would do. Be bold to show us which books of the Bible are authentic in your own canon and which are not - then I shall show you what Christ Himself would do!

Well since christ is not physically around to show us which scripture is right and which is wrong, we should let the holy spirit guide us. And for those of us that are yet to be spirit filled, we should test wether what we are reading conforms to the nature and the spirit of Christ which is based on eternal love

KunleOshob:

Well since christ is not physically around to show us which scripture is right and which is wrong, we should let the holy spirit guide us. And for those of us that are yet to be spirit filled, we should test wether what we are reading conforms to the nature and the spirit of Christ which is based on eternal love

This is just being evasive. Did you not know that "Christ is not physically around" before you tried to argue doctrine tirelessly from the same Bible in other threads?

pilgrim.1:

If there is no "room" (?) for an accurate answer and you haven't read every single book, what is the substance to your assertions then? How is it that people just make these assertions without having checked for themselves? Thsi was why I was wondering that you're just repeating from others what you assume by rote!

My dear pilgim.1 this is my 1000th post on nairaland which i am dedicating to you I don't need to read the whole bible for me to detect that it is not undiluted. However i would have to read every book in spirit to determine which books are 100% undiluted and what would that profit me or any one after all Jesus did not send the bible to us neither did he tell us to base our faith or christianity in it. Jesus sent the holy spirit that should be enough to guide true christians who understand his true Gospel which is also revealed in the bible under question

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgim.1 this is my 1000th post on nairaland which i am dedicating to you I don't need to read the whole bible for me to detect that it is not undiluted. However i would have to read every book in spirit to determine which books are 100% undiluted and what would that profit me or any one after all Jesus did not send the bible to us neither did he tell us to base our faith or christianity in it. Jesus sent the holy spirit that should be enough to guide true christians who understand his true Gospel which is also revealed in the bible under question

I have said earlier that your strain of argument is not helping your ideology, and that was why I wanted to leave the thread until such a time as may invite my further inputs. When you begin to understand what I have been pointing out, perhaps only then would you see the difference.

Cheers.

@ Sleekymag

@ PASTOR AIO
Quote
This thread gives the perfect example of why I no longer use the term christian for myself.

I just want to give Kunle some encouragement from where I am sitting.  No one can tell you what is in your heart.  This is your own personal journey.  Don't be bullied by their doctrines and aggressive orthodoxology.

Then i wonder why you use Pastor as part of your name on this forum. Or is it meant to mislead people?

Thank you for that question.  No it is not meant to mislead people.  However it has had very many interesting results that aptly demonstrate many of the issues that I often raise. 
Such issues as:
-The inertia and superficiality of human thinking. 

-Laziness of humanity

-The need for spiritual discerning.

Actually these are all the same issue.  Let me try to explain what I am saying by giving a few anecdotes.

A while back when I had just joined this forum there  was a thread about Evolution (one of many) which I contributed to.  Now, it is my position that evolution is undeniable.  I wrote a post stating that those who deny evolution should not be given the flu vaccine which is renewed every year.  Why?  Because the flu vaccine has to be renewed every year for the simply reason that the flu virus evolves, so it changes from year to year.  If evolution did not occur then there should be no need for a new vaccine.  There should also be no need for new pesticides to get rid of mosquitos.  So those that deny evolution should be denied the latest antibiotics and the latest insecticides.  All these are arguments in favour of evolution, you get me.
Well what have you, the very next post was by a certain creature called KAG that just poured out all sorts of invective at my person and rubbishing my post.  It became clear as I was reading KAG's post that KAG hadn't read my post at all.  This KAG was actually an atheist and a believer in evolution.  On further investigation it turned out that all KAG saw was the name Pastor AIO and that was enough to draw the response that I got.  the word Pastor triggered such a violent reaction in KAG that he became incapable of reasoning (if he ever had this capability).   How could someone write such a lengthy and strongly worded response to something that they hadn't read at all?  The answer is that KAG was operating on the basest level of human cognition.  At this level the whole being reacts to a simple stimulus almost instinctively.  This process was well demonstrated by a scientist called Pavlov.  What Pavlov did was he rang a bell just before he was about to give his dog something to eat.  When the dog saw the food it started to salivate.  After repeating this process numerous times he eventually discovered that he could make the dog salivate just by ringing the bell (though there was no food present).  The sound of the bell triggered the response which however was now inappropriate. 

Okay, I admit that KAG's case is particularly distinguished as being the worst that I've ever experienced, however there are many other people out there who think on this level of cognitive processing.  Actually we all do to some extent but there are a few of us who can also employ higher faculties than that.  The highest of those faculties  comes from the spirit.

So the first couple of points that I want to make from the above are:


Read my posts and respond to my arguments and don't worry about whether I'm a pastor or not.

Don't be lazy.  Enquire into all things with that spirit that searches all things.
(1cor 2:10!!!  I hope this satisfies some of those that worry that I don't quote enough bible)

The Spirit is not Lazy.  It is the Flesh that is Lazy.

It is the Flesh and it's laziness that seeks out the Authority that can spoon feed it so that it doesn't have to reason.

It is this Flesh that would rather have a bible that is the '100 % undiluted word of God' so it can get into it's clever semantic processes.



Now Pavlov's experiments demonstrated how the Flesh can be programed to respond in certain ways.  That was just at one of the lowest levels of cognitive processing.  Actually this system can get a hell of a lot more complicated.  It can produce highly trained intellectual gymnasts who can do all sorts of semantic cartwheels and argue quite Maradonically.  But ultimately it is still the same dead, inert stupidity.  It can create nothing.  It is stuck in it's speculative Religionism. 

So to conclude my answer to Sleekymag's question.  No one can mislead you unless you are already mislead.

No pushy pushy unless person dey push inself.
Gbon Gbon o si, a fi ti eni ba ti ara e.

@pastor
Hats off to you for your reply, I read most of pavlov's work and was really impressed, although I flunked it once already I am re taking it again.
I agree with you that most portions of the bible would not pass the Golden rule of treat people how you want to be treated. It bothers me though why christians have to hold on to the old testament, I know Jesus did not make things easy but could I pass some portions of the bible through you and then we see if what happened is in the spirit of true love, it will be just your opinion and no one has to agree with you. Let me know if you are game.

Pastor AIO:

A while back when I had just joined this forum there was a thread about Evolution (one of many) which I contributed to. Now, it is my position that evolution is undeniable. I wrote a post stating that those who deny evolution should not be given the flu vaccine which is renewed every year. Why? Because the flu vaccine has to be renewed every year for the simply reason that the flu virus evolves, so it changes from year to year. If evolution did not occur then there should be no need for a new vaccine. There should also be no need for new pesticides to get rid of mosquitos. So those that deny evolution should be denied the latest antibiotics and the latest insecticides.

this is funny.

1. the flu virus DOES NOT EVOLVE . . . it MUTATES. Those terms cannot be used interchangeably and a mutation cannot be said to be similar to evolution.

2. Producing new pesticides to get rid of mosquitoes is simply because insects can and do develop tolerance to certain toxins.

Based on these 2 weak cases you brought up in support of evolution, would you then admit that man is still evolving? For example we know that Down's syndrome is as a result of genetic mutation, we also know that man develops resistance to antibiotics which is the reason you are strongly advised never to stop ur antibiotic regimen midway . . .

DavidDylan:

this is funny.

1. the flu virus DOES NOT EVOLVE . . . it MUTATES. Those terms cannot be used interchangeably and a mutation cannot be said to be similar to evolution.

2. Producing new pesticides to get rid of mosquitoes is simply because insects can and do develop tolerance to certain toxins.

Based on these 2 weak cases you brought up in support of evolution, would you then admit that man is still evolving? For example we know that Down's syndrome is as a result of genetic mutation, we also know that man develops resistance to antibiotics which is the reason you are strongly advised never to stop ur antibiotic regimen midway . . .

All wrong, all wrong, if you pardon me.

The flu virus does evolve as a result of mutations happening at the gene level. Mutations are random changes in the gene structure of organism. Such changes can be beneficial, deleterious or neutral. It is the selective pressures on the organism that may exploit these mutation (if they are expressed phenotypically) to the "benefit" of the organism. Such exploitation of mutational changes is what is called evolution.

So bacteria, virus,, etc develop resistance to antibiotics etc because they exploit the mutational changes in their genes. The fact that they have not grown arms and a brain does not mean they have not evolve. Any form of change occasioned by a mutational change is what is called evolution.

@ KunleOshob
Hi, kunle. Just want to contribute a little to help you.I really hope you can gain from this. Please do not be offended by the ‘Kunle syncre’ diagnosis by pilgrim.1 and odas. Sorry, don’t mind them/us.

some questions i would like to as those screaming about the perfection of the bible are these:
What if the catholic church had not included the old testament in the bible (like they decided to exclude several other books regarded as scripture by the early christians) would you still be defending the old testament if you came across them outside christian literature?

The catholic church you’re probably referring to here is not the same catholic church as we have it today. Then, there were no protestants. The word catholic just meant universal i.e the universal body of Christ.
I believe God guards His word. The scriptures affirm that. If you’ve studied your history as well as you claim, you’ll notice that major attempts have being made by several individuals and groups and even governments to make the bible extinct.They’ve all failed. The Word says Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever. I believe that to mean that there is no part of the word of God that man can make to cease.It endures forever,no matter the storms.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
No manipulation is enough, no council is sufficient to delete it or not include it.If it is not included, then its because its not scripture because the word of God cannot pass away. Do you believe that?

The other question i would also like to act is this: on what premise do you assume that the catholic church did a divine Job of compiling the bible under the guidiance of Emperor constantine who had political motives?

As I said earlier, what you refer to here as the catholic church was the only church at that time.There was no church outside it yet. The council of Nicaea which you refer to wit Constantine the great had nearly 300 bishops in attendance. The attendance represented all the churches in existence at that time.The major issue discussed wasn’t compilation of books.And the decisions of the council were made by the church reps (bishops) not by Constantine. Of all the issues discussed, there was 1 disagreement made by 2 out of nearly 300 BISHOPS. Compilation of bible wasn’t the issue disagreed on.

Did jesus christ promise us a canon of scripture or the holy spirit to guide us?

Jesus encouraged His followers to use the Word (the scriptures).He is refered to as the Scriptures. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
The early Christians depended on the scriptures for guidance.They rated it as equal to the Holy Spirit.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

What evidence do we have why did Martin luther have to edit the bible to produce the one commonly used today?
Why is the ethopian bible substantially different from the one that originated from the catholic church? ( Christianity was practiced and accepted in ethopia centuries before the roman catholic church).

Same as your 1st and 2nd questions.God cannot allow/permit His word to be tampered with.He loves us too much than to allow that happen. B T W, Luther or whoever had their translation sources and they are still available. Even earlier manuscripts like the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint are available today.you can always check up.

Like I said,earlier manuscripts are still available.Try to access them if you please and verify which one is more 'accurate'.I think instead of complaining, we should eulogize these heroes of faith (translators and co) who gave their all to give us what we have today.Some paid with their blood thru persecution.Some spent decades etc.Consider the Authorized Version(KJV) for instance,it was done by about 54 translators. These were men of honesty and unusual philology.They were extremely accurate and pain-staking people.they were scholars and masters of languages.They were Christians and most of them never married.If you or any one feel more consecrated than that or more qualified than them to translate or publish,please do and give us a better translation.As I said,the manuscripts are still available.

Why did Jesus say all those that "all who came before me where robbers and thieves"? John 10:8

Because He meant it.

Why do we have so many versions and interpretations of the bible?

Because we have many languages.We live in a literate world friend.We have the printing press.The Bible wasn’t originally written in English.So no particular press has exclusive privileges to translation.Anybody dissatisfied with present translations may go ahead to translate, The manuscripts are available. This is not to take any thing away from any of the versions.Most have being honest with their translations.the translations differ mostly due to purpose and method of translation.There are different types of the English language for example.There’s American English, there’s Welsh,there’s Canadian, there’s Australian,there’s pidgin, there’s contemporary etc.Also,some translations are word for word, some are phrase for phrase while some try to capture what thy feel the passage is saying in a most suitable grammar to them.It also depends on manuscript available to the translators. All the same,the Lord still demonstrates His power and uses this Word irrespective of the versions to touch and change lives. That I think is the more important thing friend.

Why do we have so many church denominations all claiming to be divinely inspired?
Why is the church not one?
Why is the greatest commandment of Jesus christ (Love your neigbhour as your self) not being preached or actively encouraged and practised by most so called christian (chrsit like) churches?

Because wolves and false christs have entered into the sheepfold.We’ve being warned of these things ahead by Christ.There is trouble in the world,but as believers, we are expected to be of good cheer because Jesus has overcome the world.We’re not expected to be confused and discouraged.We knew it was coming already.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
What we need to do is WATCH, watch well and watch hard. And pray so that you’re not deceived.Let not your heart be troubled. If you believe in God, Believe also in Christ the Word made flesh.Hope I was able to help you a lidu

huxley:

All wrong, all wrong, if you pardon me.

The flu virus does evolve as a result of mutations happening at the gene level. Mutations are random changes in the gene structure of organism. Such changes can be beneficial, deleterious or neutral. It is the selective pressures on the organism that may exploit these mutation (if they are expressed phenotypically) to the "benefit" of the organism. Such exploitation of mutational changes is what is called evolution.

So bacteria, virus,, etc develop resistance to antibiotics etc because they exploit the mutational changes in their genes. The fact that they have not grown arms and a brain does not mean they have not evolve. Any form of change occasioned by a mutational change is what is called evolution.

You just went round and round defining mutations and struggling desperately to link it to evolution.

Mutation is well known . . . evolution is up in the air. We claim to have evolved from single cells . . . HOW? If ordinary flu viruses and bacteria cant do anymore than simply make selective changes in their genome to vaccines and antibiotics then how can you honestly defend the THEORY of evolution?

DavidDylan:

You just went round and round defining mutations and struggling desperately to link it to evolution.

Mutation is well known . . . evolution is up in the air. We claim to have evolved from single cells . . . HOW? If ordinary flu viruses and bacteria can't do anymore than simply make selective changes in their genome to vaccines and antibiotics then how can you honestly defend the THEORY of evolution?

If you rule out evolution, then you must have a way of explaining the lack of complex multicellular life in the pre-cambrian. I like to put it like this - "Why are there no rabbit fossils (or fossils of dogs, goats, horses, humans) in the pre-cambrians?"

Are you familiar with HOX's gene's? Check it out; Some pointers below:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_brief_overview_of_hox_genes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_genes

@ image123.
Pardon me, but you are wrong in your assertion about the Catholic Church.

Image123:

The catholic church you’re probably referring to here is not the same catholic church as we have it today. Then, there were no protestants. The word catholic just meant universal i.e the universal body of Christ.

Image123:

As I said earlier, what you refer to here as the catholic church was the only church at that time.There was no church outside it yet.

You are wrong in the above. Consider the following.

1) The Catholic Church was not the only Christian domination at that time. Infact I have heard historians argue that the Ethiopian Orthodox church is older than the Catholic Church.

2) Catholic Church stated as roman Christians. There were Christians in Rome as far back as the time of Emperor Nero, just as there are Christians in all over the world at that time. But at that time Christianity was illegal and unpopular in Rome. Until later when the roman emperor Constantine became a Christian and made roman Christianity the official religion of Rome. This official Christian religion of Rome, in order to win converts, the church retained so many of the ancient roman beliefs and traditions. I.e. in Rome, even as far back as the time of Julius Caesar, the chief Priest, or leader is called the pontifex maximus. Caesar was a pontifex maximus. Inorder to win supersticious roman who would never disobey the pontifex maximus, Constantine incorporated the office of the pontifex maximuns into Christianity. The Bishop of the roman Christians henceforth also become known as the pontifex maximus, -- the pope or papa. Today popes are still addressed as the pontiff, which is a word derived from the ancient Roman word Pontifex.

3) Only when Constantine made roman Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire did the religion become know as the Catholic or universal religion of the empire. Not universal body of Christ as such, but the universal religion of the world which was the Roman Empire. Constantine wanted to use the religion to unify the Roman Empire, which to them was the whole world; that’s why they had the council of nicea. All the bishops all over the world came together to sort out their different beliefs and become part of the universal religion. Each of the bishops represented a Christian church and Constantine seceded in merging most of them with the Roman church, or Catholicism.

4) Therefore, even before Christianity became legal in Rome, different Christian churches or denominations had already taken roots in different parts of the world. Most of them letter got incorporated into the Catholic Church, but some did not, i.e. the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The bible that we have today was compiled by the Catholics. When they became the universal religion of the Roman Empire, they collected all Christian and Jewish scriptures, including letters that the apostles wrote to different churches. Out of this collection they choose to compile what we have as the bible today. This is why the scripture or the bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is different. They kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected. Even the Gnostic Christians kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected.
Later out the catholic bible, the Protestants rejected more books, like Macabes 1 and 2, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

Thanks

@Image123

Image123:

Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations:

 
International Standard Version (©2008)
"You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me. But you are not willing to come to me to have life."

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."


GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"You study the Scriptures in detail because you think you have the source of eternal life in them. These Scriptures testify on my behalf. Yet, you don't want to come to me to get [eternal] life."


American Standard Version
"Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life."

Bible in Basic English
"You make search in the holy Writings, in the belief that through them you get eternal life; and it is those Writings which give witness about me. And still you have no desire to come to me so that you may have life."

Douay-Rheims Bible
"Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life."


The verse correctly said that people search the scriptures because they think that the scriptures contain eternal life. But the scriptures at best bear witness or points towards Jesus Who is the Truth. Therefore there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Eternal life only comes by living the words of Jesus. Therefore we should put Christ before everything, even before the scriptures. This is what the verse(John 5:39) is saying.

In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Besides in John 5:39, or in the time of Jesus, what was referred to as the "scriptures" was not the Bible we have today. What they had then was what the jews have today as the torah, parts of which is contained in the old testament.

@justcool,

justcool:

The bible that we have today was compiled by the Catholics. When they became the universal religion of the Roman Empire, they collected all Christian and Jewish scriptures, including letters that the apostles wrote to different churches. Out of this collection they choose to compile what we have as the bible today. This is why the scripture or the bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is different. They kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected. Even the Gnostic Christians kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected.
Later out the catholic bible, the Protestants rejected more books, like Macabes 1 and 2, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

It is always very easy to make accusative assumptions here and there, but one thing I have always asked and been interested in is this: could you guys just simply show what books are supposed to be in the Bible and what books should be left out before you can be satisfied with a canon as 'Scripture'?

justcool:

@Image123
Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations:

In other words, people are not encouraged to search the Scriptures? You should be careful what you say, because interpretations matter - depending on what you either read out of a text, or otherwise read into the text.

justcool:

The verse correctly said that people search the scriptures because they think that the scriptures contain eternal life. But the scriptures at best bear witness or points towards Jesus Who is the Truth. Therefore there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Eternal life only comes by living the words of Jesus. Therefore we should put Christ before everything, even before the scriptures. This is what the verse(John 5:39) is saying.

That is quite another matter - as I said, it all depends on interpretations springing from either what you read into the text or what you read out of the text. God's Word in Scripture is always given a very serious place in the life of a believer, and the Lord Jesus always made this very clear. One cannot come to truly know what life in Christ truly means if they downplay the importance of Scripture - for even Jesus made clear that faith in Him is contigent upon what Scripture says about Him: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:39). Faith comes by hearing the word of God - and that is a principle that runs through Scripture.

justcool:

InsoIn somenslations, the meanManningchanged or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

How would you know that KJV "omitted" the word 'You' at the beginning of that verse? Have you carefully checked if that word even appears at the beginning of that verse in the Greek manuscripts? You are just going by what some other versions are saying which have inserted that word 'you' at the beginning.

In any case, any serious student of that verse knows that it is an imperative, pointing to the attitude of giving mere lip service to obedience to God's Word. They knew how to point to the Scripture if asked any question, but even when they had the answers they would never make a single move towards what they themselves have discovered! This has been their very attitude from the very onset - an example in Matthew 2 was when Herod called these same fellows and asked them where Jesus was to be born. They were accurate in giving the answers, but they never took one step in seeking out the very thing they themselves recommended from Scripture to Herod (see verse 5 especially)!

There's nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures - the lives of the prophets were marked by that very thing (compare 1 Peter 1:10-11, where the prophets are said to have "enquired and searched diligently" the matters reported now in the saving Gospel of Christ). It all depends what you either read into the text, or otherwise read out of it; but the principle is always certainly that people do not just base their interpretations solely on one verse in isolation - scripture should be compared with scripture (see 2 Peter 1:20).

justcool:

Besides in John 5:39, or in the time of Jesus, what was referred to as the "scriptures" was not the Bible we have today. What they had then was what the jews have today as the torah, parts of which is contained in the old testament.

That does not mean that the NT had no bearing collectively as 'Scripture'. One principle of a prophet was that he spoke the very oracles of God - whether he spoke it directly, or that he wrote it down himself, or that others acted as his scribe(s): what they spoke was scripture. People who complain about what Scripture should not be and who canonized what and why, etc, are themselves unable to tell us what exactly they would call 'Scripture'.

God in His wisdom gave the Scriptures to us in a way that would confound the hard-wired brainy braggarts who deem to themselves superior in intellect to always present problems about 'scripture' and themselves never able to categorically say what precisely they hold as 'scripture'. This is why I have often and again asked that those who are happy to slice what books they cannot include in scripture, should tell us what in their spirituality would count as 'scripture'. Surely that would not be a difficult thing to do, since we often hear them say that the 'Spirit' tells them in their hearts what and what could be called Scripture. As soon as they can do this, I would gladly lead them to see what they are doing to their own faith. The problem here is that they have never taken the time to understand these matters, and that is why it becomes increasingly easy for them to misconstrue one thing for the other.

@Image123,

Image123:

@ KunleOshob
Hi, kunle. Just want to contribute a little to help UI really hope you can gain from this. Please do not be offended by the ‘Kunle syncre’ diagnosis by pilgrim.1 and odas. Sorry, don’t mind them/us.

Bo my broda, na wa sef for this yeye pilgrim.1 - she and her diagnosis sef! Don't mind her o jare.

Anyhow, I enjoyed your bit, quite refreshing. Blessings.

Justcool.Please go and re-verify your informations from reliable sources please.

@pilgrim.1
Hope Kunle would not mind you abi na us cos many have being accused.keep praying o.Takia

@Justcool
Thanx for your insightful analysis.

Image123:

Justcool.Please go and re-verify your informations from reliable sources please.

The onus is on anybody who does not agree with what justcool as written to go and re-verify from sources which which the person considers reliabe.

@Image123
Thanx for your analysis but i must comment that it is highly flawed with so many assumptions which are scripturally and logically unsubstantiated.
First of all do you understand that there is a difference between what was refered to as scripture in biblical times and the bible as we have it today? Do you also realize that "the word" being refered to in the scriptures is Jesus and not the bible you have it today? I would have gone further to explain things  but Justcool as already done an excellent Job at that even though you choose not to believe the truth for no apparent reason.

pilgrim.1:

@justcool,

It is always very easy to make accusative assumptions here and there, but one thing I have always asked and been interested in is this: could you guys just simply show what books are supposed to be in the Bible and what books should be left out before you can be satisfied with a canon as 'Scripture'?

It is not in my authority or place to do that but when i come across what is not of christ in the bible i know it is not meant for my christian life

pilgrim.1:

In other words, people are not encouraged to search the Scriptures? You should be careful what you say, because interpretations matter - depending on what you either read out of a text, or otherwise read into the text.

I am sure justcool was very explicit in his explaination of this issue with enough biblical quotes from various versions to back up his claim. As i have always told you KJV as several translation errors.

pilgrim.1:


That is quite another matter - as I said, it all depends on interpretations springing from either what you read into the text or what you read out of the text.

I now know why you always have a different understanding of scripture: you are always reading your own meaning into it

pilgrim.1:


How would you know that KJV "omitted" the word 'You' at the beginning of that verse?

Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

pilgrim.1:


God in His wisdom gave the Scriptures to us in a way that would confound the hard-wired brainy braggarts

God gave us scripture in a way I thought it was wriiten by men under inspiration for the understanding and use of men. And why would God want to confuse anybody about his word which is meant for our use? And does 100% scripture = 100% bible?

What happened to the book of enoch Jude quoted from in the book of Jude? Wasn't it considered scripture then? Why did the catholic church decide to exclude it from the bible when the early apostles who should know better considered it as scripture? The Ethopian orthodox church which is older than the catholic church included it in their own canon of scripture along with several other books excluded from our own bible. why is this so? The questions are many my dear. I sincerely pray and hope that the holy spirit would minister the truth to us all and we would listen to the spirit. I understand what centuries of indoctrination can do so i won't blame any body who finds it difficult to come to terms with the truth staring us all in the face.

@KunleOshob,

How body? Like I said earlier, you don't seem to have moved from one spot on the problems you have presented to yourself. One who assumes these things the way you do should be able to bear witness simple and without much ado about what exactly he is pursuing. You cannot keep making vacant assertions and blow breeze in the air when asked to be specific.

KunleOshob:

It is not in my authority or place to do that but when i come across what is not of christ in the bible i know it is not meant for my christian life

Nothing new there. It has always been in your place to indicate that you cannot accept certain passages of Scripture, so what is this dribbling that you always present as a passport?

KunleOshob:

I am sure justcool was very explicit in his explaination of this issue with enough biblical quotes from various versions to back up his claim. As i have always told you KJV as several translation errors.

I'm sure that you're applauding just about anything that peppers your misadventures. That is why I asked a simple thing there: he should go and check and be sure of his assertion that KJV "omitted" the word 'you' at the beginning of John 5:39. Anybody can make these obviously flawed assertion as if they have any clue what they are saying, and that is why you have bought into the lie that there are about 300,000 translation errors in the KJV. Yes, there are translation errors in most many versions and translations, but man in his duplicity likes to overblow these things and arrive at 300,000 errors. That was why I asked you if YOU had personally checked them out for yourself before singing the same anthem by rote?!

Kunle, justcool was absolutely wrong - the KJV did not "omit" that word ('you'), but he was only basing his adventures on some versions that have inserted that word at the beginning of the verse! Please check it out yourself and let's read from you. I shall be looking forward to that. If you fail to highlight the same, you would only be confirming what I have been saying: false accusations and allegations seem to undergird the type of spirituality many people take to themselves today. Would you care to check and confirm the same?

KunleOshob:

I now know why you always have a different understanding of scripture: you are always reading your own meaning into it

Why should I please the false pious assertions of people reading their own "omissions" into the texts?

KunleOshob:

Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

Kunle, the word "you" is not in the manuscripts at the beginning of that verse. What has happened is that it was INSERTED there by those other versions. The man who said KJV "omitted" that word is simply lying through his teeth. Go and check and let me know if you like to buy into that lie.

KunleOshob:

God gave us scripture in a way I thought it was wriiten by men under inspiration for the understanding and use of men. And why would God want to confuse anybody about his word which is meant for our use? And does 100% scripture = 100% bible?

You see how you are happy to misread what I wrote? This is why I have refrained from discussing anything and rather ask questions. Yes, God gave us His Word in such a way that man who deems himself super-intelligent will always miss it! ask some more and I shall simply give you the verses to consider - but before I do so, I want you to show me what John 5:39 was "omitting" instead of "inserting" done by those other versions. If you cannot show this, I'm sorry it would only confirm that you are always happy to be patted on the back by those misleading you.

KunleOshob:

What happened to the book of enoch Jude quoted from in the book of Jude? Wasn't it considered scripture then? Why did the catholic church decide to exclude it from the bible when the early apostles who should know better considered it as scripture? The Ethopian orthodox church which is older than the catholic church included it in their own canon of scripture along with several other books excluded from our own bible. why is this so? The questions are many my dear. I sincerely pray and hope that the holy spirit would minister the truth to us all and we would listen to the spirit. I understand what centuries of indoctrination can do so i won't blame any body who finds it difficult to come to terms with the truth staring us all in the face.

Have you ever heard of such terms as "Deutero-Canonicals/Apocrypha"? You complain so much as a man shooting his lips into the air. Kunle, please show me your own canon and then the very core of your argument will then be presented to you - neat and easy.

Cheers.