JMAN05:


You ve not replied to my post i guess.

Hello JMAN05, I did not mean to seem to ignore your post, I felt that the subject matter had been dealt with in subsequent exchanges and then you vanished from the thread, great to see you back.

Sarassin:


Yes my friend, I know it, and so do you. The question is do the rank and file know it?

to add to this, muttleylaff if you agree that the translators were not necessarily God-inspired, wouldn't it mean that you're knowledge of the bible (the translated nd prooably "transcribed" should be given the benefit of a doubt? and subject to further scrutiny? How can we whom were spoon-fed with the abrahamic religion prove its authenticity/originality/authority etc (After all our ancestors didnt know jesus or YVWH. Moreover the introduction of Christianity to blacks was actually a strategic scheme orchestrated by the colonial masters to break our spirits). We are all aware the papacy exploited certain verses for their evil political, brainwash and mind control agenda. We have lost majority of the aramaic text written by the disciples of jesus themselves, so we are left with those uninspired translations written by the so called papal saints of God.

I think that this thread amply demonstrates that some people are here to share learn knowledge while other people, who are best ignored, are merely here to boost their egotism. These people don't have anything to offer anyone, rather they'll distract to and derail you.

One important question I want to also ask muttleylaff, sarassin, pastorAio, - why is it that in the Christianity the doctrines are not universal? why was apostle apostle paul analysing in his epistles? especially that concerning judiac rituals such as circumcision? if what jesus taught is only what we have then why is it that during his time gnostism had already sprung up? there is one statement paul made concerning the alteration of doctrines that sent a chill down my spine,
Galatians 1; 7-8 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or [B]an angel from heaven[/B], preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed..
an angel from heaven could preach something else?? mehnn!!!

kkins25:
One important question I want to also ask muttleylaff, sarassin, pastorAio, - why is it that in the Christianity the doctrines are not universal? why was apostle apostle paul analysing in his epistles? especially that concerning judiac rituals such as circumcision? if what jesus taught is only what we have then why is it that during his time gnostism had already sprung up? there is one statement paul made concerning the alteration of doctrines that sent a chill down my spine,
Galatians 1; 7-8 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or [B]an angel from heaven[/B], preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed..
an angel from heaven could preach something else?? mehnn!!!

I think you will find that Gnosticism predated Jesus of Nazareth. We know this because all of the documentary finds we have ranging from the Essenic Dead Sea scrolls to the Nag Hammadi Library, writings that predate the times of Jesus are all Gnostic in nature. The Gospel of Mark is highly Gnostic as is the Book of John, the Hebrew Mathew is another example. Further If we are to believe early Jewish Christian writers i.e the Ebionites then we are led to believe that the actual teachings of Jesus were Gnostic in nature. In fact to date, there are no historical documents found preceding the 4th century CE that supports the Pauline doctrine outside of the NT writings.

Proto-Orthodoxy was propagated by the Apostle Paul and he sealed it with a curse to ensure that nobody taught anything to the contrary.

Sarassin:


I think you will find that Gnosticism predated Jesus of Nazareth. We know this because all of the documentary finds we have ranging from the Essenic Dead Sea scrolls to the Nag Hammadi Library, writings that predate the times of Jesus are all Gnostic in nature.

I wasnt aware it predated jesus but i'd look it up. are you also refering to the rabbinical teachings such as the zohar and book of formation or the kabbalah in general??

The Gospel of Mark is highly Gnostic as is the Book of John, the Hebrew Mathew is another example. Further If we are to believe early Jewish Christian writers i.e the Ebionites then we are led to believe that the actual teachings of Jesus were Gnostic in nature. In fact to date, there are no historical documents found preceding the 4th century CE that supports the Pauline doctrine outside of the NT writings.

would look up the ebionites. id need to look up the doctrine of paul vs early Christians.

Proto-Orthodoxy was propagated by the Apostle Paul and he sealed it with a curse to ensure that nobody taught anything to the contrary.

.

kkins25:
I wasnt aware it predated jesus but i'd look it up. are you also refering to the rabbinical teachings such as the zohar and book of formation or the kabbalah in general??

The Zohar does not predate Jesus of Nazareth even though it is considered the key to enlightened interpretation of the Bible but yes, it is highly gnostic in nature as is Qabbalah in general. More importantly the Essenic Dead Sea Scrolls whose compilation began somewhere around 45BCE clearly predate Jesus’ time and it’s completion was somewhere around the year 70CE, the writings are clearly gnostic, it is important because Jesus clearly drew on some of the teachings of the Essenic writings as well as their practices for instance, communal sharing.

In addition Jesus clearly espoused the views of the greatest Rabbinical teachers of his time; Hillel and Shammai, their teachings were also gnostic. It would be fair to say that Jesus of Nazareth had Gnostic and Apocalyptic leanings.

Sarassin:


The Zohar does not predate Jesus of Nazareth even though it is considered the key to enlightened interpretation of the Bible but yes, it is highly gnostic in nature as is Qabbalah in general. More importantly the Essenic Dead Sea Scrolls whose compilation began somewhere around 45BCE clearly predate Jesus’ time and it’s completion was somewhere around the year 70CE, the writings are clearly gnostic, it is important because Jesus clearly drew on some of the teachings of the Essenic writings as well as their practices for instance, communal sharing.

In addition Jesus clearly espoused the views of the greatest Rabbinical teachers of his time; Hillel and Shammai, their teachings were also gnostic. It would be fair to say that Jesus of Nazareth had Gnostic and Apocalyptic leanings.

Good day.
You haven't replied my message.
Guess you are busy.
Waiting expectantly.

Sarassin:


Hello JMAN05, I did not mean to seem to ignore your post, I felt that the subject matter had been dealt with in subsequent exchanges and then you vanished from the thread, great to see you back.

No, it has not. I always check the thread to see if you ve replied me, but I see nothing.

PastorAIO:
Exodus6:3

3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.

Funny thing is that Yahweh is all over the place before Moses turns up.

Because the same God that appeared to Abraham as EL-shaddai is the one that revealed himself to Moses as the one that appeared to Abraham Isasc and Jacob. Hence, the one that asked moses to write.

It therefore made sense that Moses identified him where ever in his writing whenever a reference to him YAHWHE is made.

Simple!

Peace.

PsychopathicG:
Bros, you get sense abeg. Sometimes I look at Nigerians and marvel at the level of illiteracy, how can you be claiming that a religion of a people who didn't have land until 1948 is UNIQUE. These guys have been slaves so long their history is definitely gonna be a sum total of the histories of their masters. I still think this is the reason why it permeates easily tho,they have borrowed from everywhere on earth, every culture possible. And this also explains why a bulk of social phenomena have ready made answers in the Bible, the solutions depend on the time tho, and the Bible requires evangelists to give it time-fit meanings. On its own, the bible is a flawed old book of cultural stories.

Actually, Your reasoning have turned the reason up-side-down to deceived you.

How can slaves be so educated?
how can slaves influence the the whole world with their "philosophy"?

Can slaves produce the 600 and twenty three or so laws that most has influenced most of the world's populations?

Actually, The slavery thing was meant to achieved the completely opposite, to prevent them from assimilating the diverse worshiped rampant all around them. So that when they form a nation, they would receive the unique laws they got on mount Sinai, to make them different from every other nation.

In fact, their going into slavery was prophesied 400 years before it occurred and 800 years about their being freed to become a nation.

On the way to the promised nation/land, the laws was given to this slaves. Up to you to decide whether this slaves produced those laws.

But you did not see them as slaves but as a people on espionage. Lol.

Always get the facts right.

don't swallow all the permutation you read online without making personal investigation from different sources.

Peace.

Sir, you are missing the point. As usual. I am not asking if Yahweh is equivalent to el shaddai or not.

Exodus 6:3 says Abraham did not know Yahweh by name.

Genesis 14:22 quotes Abraham as calling Yahweh by name.

So the question, wherein lies my point, is 'Did Abraham know Yahwehs name or not'? One of those 2 bible passages is a lie. Or maybe even both sef.

truthislight:


Because the same God that appeared to Abraham as EL-shaddai is the one that revealed himself to Moses as the one that appeared to Abraham Isasc and Jacob. Hence, the one that asked moses to write.

It therefore made sense that Moses identified him where ever in his writing whenever a reference to him YAHWHE is made.

Simple!

Peace.

https://www.nairaland.com/3992671/tithing-truth-history-origin-catholic

Are you serving the biblical God or a man-made version/imagination

PastorAIO:
Sir, you are missing the point. As usual. I am not asking if Yahweh is equivalent to el shaddai or not.

Exodus 6:3 says Abraham did not know Yahweh by name.

Genesis 14:22 quotes Abraham as calling Yahweh by name.

So the question, wherein lies my point, is 'Did Abraham know Yahwehs name or not'? One of those 2 bible passages is a lie. Or maybe even both sef.

Read that my post again.

Since Abraham did not do the writing of the account he cannot be said that he knew based on that.

Someone else did the reported speech

My explanation is that the one that had discussion with Abraham did asked moses to write what took place between them in the past, hence it was appropriate for moses to insert the name of Yahweh in the reported speech since it was obvious to him who it was that was talking to Abraham.

Knowing that it was a reported speech and Moses was the one that Yahweh reveal his name to, mentioning Yahweh by name in his writing cannot be wrong.

He however mentioned that this name was unknown to Abraham. Any deceit there?

If you still fail to get my drift let me know.

Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made. In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage.

truthislight:


Read that my post again.

Since Abraham did not do the writing of the account he cannot be said that he knew based on that.

Someone else did the reported speech

My explanation is that the one that had discussion with Abraham did asked moses to write what took place between them in the past, hence it was appropriate for moses to insert the name of Yahweh in the reported speech since it was obvious to him who it was that was talking to Abraham.

Knowing that it was a reported speech and Moses was the one that Yahweh reveal his name to, mentioning Yahweh by name in his writing cannot be wrong.

He however mentioned that this name was unknown to Abraham. Any deceit there?

If you still fail to get my drift let me know.

Truth is light


To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.
Gen 4:26

Its like a soup. Mixed with this and that.

PastorAIO:
Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made. In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage.

PastorAIO:
Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made. In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage.

Ok.

For you to insinuate that it is not moses that wrote the book of Exodus where the name of Yahweh was given him you have to argue with its internal claims also.

That someone like his companion had or played a part also is not what am arguing against. After all, he had a close companion like Joshua.

At Exodus 17:14 we read:

14 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial in the book and repeat it to Joshua, ‘I will completely wipe out the memory of Amʹa·lek from under the heavens.’

Why Repeat to Joshua if Joshua had no Input in the writings? Why would Yahweh urge Moses to repeat it to Joshua if Joshua was a Nonentity?

The above is an instruction to Moses to "write".
You may have to counteract that instruction and tell us why we should believe you and not the document itself.

And again, you will have to tell us the reason why moses would have to disobey that direct command and still remained as a prophet of Yahweh.

Exodus 24:4
So Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah. Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and 12 pillars corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Exodus 34:27

Same command to write is given.

PastorAIO:
Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made. In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage.

According to Jesus, Moses did some writings right?

John 7:19:

19 Moses gave you the Law, did he not? But not one of you obeys the Law. Why are you seeking to kill me?”
......................................................

From the above words of Jesus, Moses is accredited with giving the laws that was received in exodus.

Unless you know something Jesus does not know you tell me.

Moses was a writer that i am very sure of according to Jesus.

Peace.

Again, The Jews are not denying that the Bible writer of Genesis is moses.

How moses could have gotten the information he wrote about?

Well, how did he get the laws he gave to the nation of Israel? It was given to him by someone he said, This someone also gave him other information he wanted to know.

If You think it is not possible for him to get information other than that of his time, then you also have to ask Jesus that said moses wrote about him:
John 5:46:
In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me

If Moses could write about the future concerning Jesus, how much easier it would be for him to write about the past from the same source of information gathering.

Start by blaming Jesus, he said Moses was inspired to write. And i believed him.

Peace.

PastorAIO:
Truth is light


To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.
Gen 4:26

You will first have to tell me which other God was there to be called upon other than Yahweh.

If Adam and others of his offsprings had refused to call on the almighty God and then Seth started it again, Which other God would the writer of Genesis had concluded they were calling? Amadioha?

Is it possible that those people before the flood did not have a designation for identifying the Almighty God?

Were they deaf and dumb?

The writer Simply identified the God they were calling by using the familiar name. Simple!

Don't forget that the name was represented by YHWH.

Peace.

Genesis said they called on the name of the lord.
What name would that be? Would they call him Amadioha? If the did would he answer ?

Do you realise that The LORD is translated from Yahweh in the Christian bible.
So when genesis says the called on the name of Yahweh I can only take that to mean that they knew the name and used it to call the bearer.

If you think otherwise then please, in as few words as possible, tell us how they called on the name of Yahweh without knowing the name but of Yahweh.

truthislight:


You will first have to tell me which other God was there to be called upon other than Yahweh.

If Adam and others of his offsprings had refused to call on the almighty God and then Seth started it again, Which other God would the writer of Genesis had concluded they were calling? Amadioha?

Is it possible that those people before the flood did not have a designation for identifying the Almighty God?

Were they deaf and dumb?

The writer Simply identified the God they were calling by using the familiar name. Simple!

Don't forget that the name was represented by YHWH.

Peace.

truthislight:


According to Jesus, Moses did some writings right?

John 7:19:

19 Moses gave you the Law, did he not? But not one of you obeys the Law. Why are you seeking to kill me?”
......................................................

From the above words of Jesus, Moses is accredited with giving the laws that was received in exodus.

Unless you know something Jesus does not know you tell me.

Moses was a writer that i am very sure of according to Jesus.

Peace.

Moses was a writer. I am a writer. Napoleon the great also wrote. So what?

Moses wrote the law. So what?
The book of Exodus etc which contained the law is not written by Moses. Why? Because these books report moses' death. Moses cannot write about what happened to his body when he died.
Perhaps moses' writings were inserted into the books but that doesn't make them written by Moses.
The fact that the book reports moses' death trumps anything you can say to prove moses wrote it.

truthislight:


Ok.

For you to insinuate that it is not moses that wrote the book of Exodus where the name of Yahweh was given him you have to argue with its internal claims also.

That someone like his companion had or played a part also is not what am arguing against. After all, he had a close companion like Joshua.

At Exodus 17:14 we read:

14 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial in the book and repeat it to Joshua, ‘I will completely wipe out the memory of Amʹa·lek from under the heavens.’

The above is an instruction to Moses to "write".
You may have to counteract that instruction and tell us why we should believe you and not the document itself.

And again, you will have to tell us the reason why moses would have to disobey that direct command and still remained as a prophet of Yahweh.

Exodus 24:4
So Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah. Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and 12 pillars corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Exodus 34:27

Same command to write is given.

again, the book contradicts itself by reporting on moses' death.

PastorAIO:


Moses was a writer. I am a writer. Napoleon the great also wrote. So what?

Moses wrote the law. So what?
The book of Exodus etc which contained the law is not written by Moses. Why? Because these books report moses' death. Moses cannot write about what happened to his body when he died.
Perhaps moses' writings were inserted into the books but that doesn't make them written by Moses.
The fact that the book reports moses' death trumps anything you can say to prove moses wrote it.

You belief what you want.

Your opinion those are.

I choosed to believe What Jesus said.

Psalms was written by David, But other writers are contributors.

Take that.

Exodus was written by Moses, that does not exclude the possibility that it had a contributor. Take Psalms as an example.

truthislight:


You belief what you want.

Your opinion those are.

I choosed to believe What Jesus said.

Psalms was written by David, But other writers are contributors.

Take that.

Exodus was written by Moses, that does not exclude the possibility that it had a contributor. Take Psalms as an example.

Thank you. I'm glad that you can admit that other people were involved in the writings. Perhaps you will soon admitted that that OT has been heavily redacted too.

If Moses gave the law that doesn't affect the book of genesis because there are no laws therein.
So we know that Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch ( at least in its entirety)because they report on moses' death.
We also know that the OT is full of contradictions that suggest that various contradictory parties have had a hand in redacting it.

Once we are aware of this then it's clear that things like the contradiction of saying that Abraham didn't know Yahweh by name in exodus, and quoting Abraham as knowing and calling Yahweh by name in genesis, become not only unsurprising but even expected.

PastorAIO:


Thank you. I'm glad that you can admit that other people were involved in the writings. Perhaps you will soon admitted that that OT has been heavily redacted too.

If Moses gave the law that doesn't affect the book of genesis because there are no laws therein.
So we know that Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch ( at least in its entirety)because they report on moses' death.
We also know that the OT is full of contradictions that suggest that various contradictory parties have had a hand in redacting it.

Once we are aware of this then it's clear that things like the contradiction of saying that Abraham didn't know Yahweh by name in exodus, and quoting Abraham as knowing and calling Yahweh by name in genesis, become not only unsurprising but even expected.

THOSE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS JUST YOUR PRISM SIGHTEDNESS THAT IS CAUSING YOUR REFRACTION ON THOSE ISSUES, NOT JUST THOSE BUT ON SO MANY COUNTS.

SO MANY THAT I CAN NOT EVEN START SINCE I MAY NOT CONCLUDE ON IT.

I DO NOT HAVE SUCH BARRIERS.

LET TO YOU, THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE RENDERED REDUNDANT.

Peace.

truthislight:


THOSE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS JUST YOUR PRISM SIGHTEDNESS THAT IS CAUSING YOUR REFRACTION ON THOSE ISSUES, NOT JUST THOSE BUT ON SO MANY COUNTS.

SO MANY THAT I CAN NOT EVEN START SINCE I MAY NOT CONCLUDE ON IT.

I DO NOT HAVE SUCH BARRIERS.

LET TO YOU, THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE RENDERED REDUNDANT.

Peace.

Do you know what a contradiction is?

Look at these 2 statements:

A: my name is Yahweh, nobody knew this before

B: thousands of years before A people began to call on the name Yahweh.

Unless people can call on yahwehs name and yet not be aware of the name at the same time THEN. The two statements are contradictions.


And now as for the redundancy of the bible .... I would not go so far as to make it redundant but I set out my objective a while.

1)This notion that the Bible is some special inspiration given by God and esteemed above every other inspiration in existence is crap.

I can get more spiritual edification from observing a painting or listening to a song than any biblical passage can offer.

2). I think it is utterly stupid to claim that the Truth, ultimate Truth, is embedded within a Text.

3) The elevation of the bible to some sort of 'constitution' of Christianity is effected purposely to detract away from the Authority of the church so the Protestant reformation can take place.

4) the substitution of reading the bible as the central Christian practice instead of the actual practice of its ethical and sacramental tenets is a cause of much irreligious activities.

5) I hate the spread of mendacity and extolling the bible as an historical and scientifically factual book is the highest peak of mendacity.


There's more. It let's digest that one first.

truthislight:


THOSE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS JUST YOUR PRISM SIGHTEDNESS THAT IS CAUSING YOUR REFRACTION ON THOSE ISSUES, NOT JUST THOSE BUT ON SO MANY COUNTS

Peace.

Sir, I'm a bit fascinated by your use of terms here. I've never heard such a metaphor as "prism sight". I spent a while trying to make sense of it. I imagine it's supposed to. E derogatory but I don't see how. A prism divides light into its component colours. Much like the the word that is 'quick and active , sharper than a two edge sword separating even soul from spirit'.

I don't see what is wrong with refraction o. Abeg explain.

PastorAIO:


Sir, I'm a bit fascinated by your use of terms here. I've never heard such a metaphor as "prism sight". I spent a while trying to make sense of it. I imagine it's supposed to. E derogatory but I don't see how. A prism divides light into its component colours. Much like the the word that is 'quick and active , sharper than a two edge sword separating even soul from spirit'.

I don't see what is wrong with refraction o. Abeg explain.

I work with light...a lot...and there's never been a scenario where dividing it into its respective component wavelengths has negative implications. In fact, the sharper and thinner your spectra, the better, because you can then reconstruct the light as accurately and as detailed as you wish, without losing information. Rejoice! For your prism sight is something I'd kill for!

PastorAIO:
Exodus6:3

3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.

Funny thing is that Yahweh is all over the place before Moses turns up

truthislight:
Because the same God that appeared to Abraham as EL-shaddai is the one that revealed himself to Moses as the one that appeared to Abraham Isasc and Jacob. Hence, the one that asked moses to write.

It therefore made sense that Moses identified him where ever in his writing whenever a reference to him YAHWEH is made.

Simple!

Peace.

PastorAIO:
Sir, you are missing the point. As usual. I am not asking if Yahweh is equivalent to el shaddai or not.

Exodus 6:3 says Abraham did not know Yahweh by name.

Genesis 14:22 quotes Abraham as calling Yahweh by name.

So the question, wherein lies my point, is 'Did Abraham know Yahwehs name or not'?

Resounding yes!
Abraham did know Yahweh's name
Abraham knew Yahweh's name and used it in conversations (e.g. Genesis 14:22)
he however, didn't get to know or witness the explicit meaning of the name; Yahweh
The occasion didnt arise for him to personally experience the meaning,
to be found in words or events, what the name; Yahweh, is and all about

God was about to manifest Himself. God was going to explosively demo,
God is ready and eager for confrontation
God is going to demonstrate for Pharaoh, the Israelites and who care to watch, what it means to be named Yahweh
Better watch out. God's on a warpath
What it takes be called Yahweh, which was not revealed Abraham, is about to be made known publicly (i.e. Exodus 6:3)

PastorAIO:
One of those 2 bible passages is a lie. Or maybe even both sef.

As read above, none of the 2 bible passages is a lie
As a matter of fact and even sef both the Genesis 14:22 and Exodus 6:3 statements are in their own rights, individually true

truthislight:
Read that my post again.

Since Abraham did not do the writing of the account he cannot be said that he knew based on that.

Someone else did the reported speech

My explanation is that the one that had discussion with Abraham did asked moses to write what took place between them in the past, hence it was appropriate for moses to insert the name of Yahweh in the reported speech since it was obvious to him who it was that was talking to Abraham.

Knowing that it was a reported speech and Moses was the one that Yahweh reveal his name to, mentioning Yahweh by name in his writing cannot be wrong.

He however mentioned that this name was unknown to Abraham. Any deceit there?

If you still fail to get my drift let me know

"¹⁸He said, "Please show me your glory."
¹⁹He said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of Yahweh before you.
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."
²⁰He said, "You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live."
²¹Yahweh also said, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock.
²²It will happen, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock,
and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by;
²³then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back;
but my face shall not be seen."
- Exodus 33:18-23

Moses asked to see time ahead, asked to see what lay in front and lies ahead,
but God declined, saying no one can see His face and live,
so instead, showed him the past, starting from, in the beginning, showed him the back and what laid behind
In effect, the someone else did the reported speech after watching a ''rewind the recording way back towards the beginning'' film or tape

PastorAIO:
Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made.
In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

Above already responded to

PastorAIO:
But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In Gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage

Yes the name was used from Enosh's time
but you've still got the wrong end of the stick, again, with Genesis 4:26b
Genesis 4:26b is not interpreted as "at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh
Genesis 4:26b is the crescendo of man's misuse/abuse of Yahweh's name and irreverent behaviour that culminated in Genesis 6:1-7

Whilst you've noticed that Genesis 4:26b is a brand new sentence,
why not consider checking what word is mistranslated as "began" in it

PastorAIO:
Genesis said they called on the name of the lord.
What name would that be? Would they call him Amadioha? If the did would he answer ?

Do you realise that The LORD is translated from Yahweh in the Christian bible.
So when genesis says the called on the name of Yahweh I can only take that to mean that they knew the name and used it to call the bearer.

If you think otherwise then please, in as few words as possible, tell us how they called on the name of Yahweh without knowing the name but of Yahweh

I think by now, the realisation has dawned on you that Genesis DOESN'T SAY they called on the name of the lord
"called on the name of the Lord" is a mistranslation of Genesis 4:26b