@seeklove,

seeklove:

@pilgrim
there you go looking for trouble again. You intimidate poeple in this forum but You will not intimidate the likes of me. I will not be like justcool who lets things go for the sake of peace. I will reply to all you post.

You're welcome to reply to any post - all my posts sef from start to finish since the first page of this thread. How you became "intimidated" after reading my post is what I need to understand. And if your effort is directly opposite to justcool's, then I am to understand that it is not "for the sake of peace", no?

seeklove:

You are not the only person in Nairaland who qualify as poeple, how come you are the only one to take offense? Guilty conscience?

Guilty conscience, for wetin naw?  Why should I be guilty for someone who quotes from John and refers that quote as "according to Matthew"? If I was not clear, I did ask him to point out who has been labelling Kunle as he alleged - there's no quarrel for him to have tried to simply show me the quotes - just as you quoted a few things I posted as regards Kunle's entries. What was wrong in asking him to show me what he alleged? What was so difficult in that request to have made him take offence?

seeklove:

the guy did not allege anything, peoeple has been attacking kunleOshob all along this thread.

"Attacking KunleOshob" - because his position was quite unstable and he could not present a clear case for his postulations? I see.

seeklove:

Did you not write this to kunleoshob

pilgrim.1:
You always cry the victim's song of people insulting you, but are very much at home to use such slobbers when you don't ever want to discuss. If there were issues, the sane and simple thing to do was point them out and request answers - not demand them and then cry the victim's song again. Thanks for the "typical" assumption, though

pilgrim.1]Kunle,

Please go and study your heart. You really don't have a clue about these issues, and even if one has to take you up on simple matters in the Bible, you still don't even know the ABCs of that Book. If you are seeking to protect your predispositions, no worries: but you haven't seen anything yet until stuff begin to happen to you!

pilgrim.1:
There is a term which people have used to describe this kind of problem: syncretism.

Now, the above is not to say that I direct syncretism as a malady to KunleOshob. . at best, it seems that is where he had begun to be inclined while still alleging that others are "ignorant". We are thankful. All the same, if one cannot trust the Bible and only believes that God's Word is written on our hearts, is it not hypocritical for such people to appeal to the same Bible when arguing a case?

[/quote]

Yes, I wrote those as regards Kunle's entries as well some of them directly to him. The first thing I asked him on page one was whether or not his faith is a Biblical one - consequently, he answered that "my faith is not in the bible". Grateful. If that has been his drive, one really wonders why he has been busy trying to fight for some other doctrines in other threads by fastidiously quoting from the same Bible that he does not base his faith upon?

Second, since he considers others "ignorant" for querying his premise, I asked him to go and check his heart - I did not "attack" him; but if that is to be read as "attack", perhaps you guys should try and help him instead of giving him these false pious hopes. He does not consider it an insult or an attack to address others with "ignorance", but he takes umbrage at anyone who dares to bring up an issue from his quotes, no? When he opens another one of his responses with "Another glaring example of Loveless and selfish christianity", he does not consider it an attack or insult, no? I guess if anyone had written that line directly to him, you guys would have taken us to barbeach for firing squad, yes? Those who presume I was "bullying" him have been so patronizing as to have deliberately missed all that, yes?

Third, I knew where KunleOshob's postulations would eventually lead his readers - I knew it all from a mile off. Not that it fazed me in anyway, since I'm not the only person who has been calling his attention from early this year to be careful. That was why I made reference to three things: (a) he should carefully examine if he had a Biblical faith; (b) pointed out that his propositions are nothing more than syncretism, where I also defined what that term means; and (c) and showed him where his summations would logically direct the minds of so many people.

In (c) above, it was at post #68 I observed this: "Is that not where (it seems) Kunle's argument is directing us?" I already saw it early enough, and asking him to consider his presuppostions was wrongly misread as bullying, insulting, being malicious, or rude. Yet, even though that same observation in that #68 is the very thing KunleOshob has led some of his adulators to assume, he did not come back at any time to state that Chrisbenogor was wrong in drawing that assumptions. I asked him several times, and it seemed it was too difficult for Kunle to be man enough to state the obvious!

It is one thing for people to quickly react when they read pilgrim.1's posts - and some who fail to see what I point to, would very quickly allege all sorts against me, while deliberately excusing the same thing from those they applaud. I have apologised to them, just to help them calm down and look again at the real issue; but when they keep making all these excuses, it necessitated my call for them to stop whining the victim's cry and wake up! Now that Kunle's proposition had brought out what he does not want to acknowledge, has any one of his adulators helped him out of what I have constantly pointed out for his consideration? No, they did not - nor did he: at best, he came back and alleged I was being mischievious!

[quote author=seeklove:

These are just a few quotes where you not only attacked the guy but insinuated that he sufferes from syncretism.

Excuse me, seeklove dear, syncretism is not a terminal ailment that people "suffer from" - it is a position one adopts which is self-contradictory.

seeklove:

You are the person always picking a fight and making false allegation. You have demonstreted this in all the threads that you posted on.

True? How come you're the only one making such an allegation? Where is justcool to come back and answer to the points I raised in his quotes - especially the false allegations he proposed? Did he address them?

seeklove:

Here again you insulting. Saying that he is making shakara.

Lol, that was mere shakara. Did he consider it an "insult" that I called his bluff (oops - 'bluff' again might be an "insult", I forgot). Please guys, just leave all these complaints and address the real concerns. What was the meaning of typing in bold that God fights for his servants? What kind of shakara was that, just because I asked him to smart up for his false allegations?

seeklove:

You say that he doent stand a solid ground, are you God?

I'm not God, never was, nor shall be. Dear justcool made false allegations which he could not address - so what is his solid ground for claiming that God would "fight" - fight, for who: him and his false allegations?

seeklove:

Believe me pilgrim there is nothing Christlike in you.

Thank you. That is even mild.

seeklove:

All you do is fight and fight and fight and fight against people. You are fighting him because he gave his own advice to KunleOshob, doent he have to right to contribut.

I don't "fight, fight, fight" - if anyone, it was justcool that started this song of "God will fight". Anyone is welcome to advice KunleOshob, as long as they don't allege a false presumption against others and then claim that God will fight for them.

seeklove:

He  didnt mention your name in his contribution, so why fight the guy??

Chill - he didn't need to mention any names when he makes false allegations.

seeklove:

You have forgoten!!! I thought you are god. does god forget? I thought you know the bible

Good that you forgot, so relax. I never implied anywhere that I was "god".

seeklove:

Even if you can't find where mathew said it, the fact remains that John said and it is in the bible.

Cop-out. I knew where John said that, but I'm still waiting for him to show me the exact quote from Matthew. Is that tooo hard for him (or even YOU) to simply show me? Just show me is all I ask - too amazingly difficult?

seeklove:

or is john not part of the bible? or is mathew not inagreement with john?

Where is the quote from Matthew? Please show me that same verse in Matthew, abi?

seeklove:

@justcool
I don't know why you let people like pilgrim 1 intimidate you. This is not the first post that you have had to ru away from because of her stupidity. I don't mean to insult you but knowing you personaly, I find it strange that you let the likes of pilgrim talk down on you.

Thank you, this is very "Christ-like" of you. Shalom.

@chessguru,

chessguru:

Whatever God wants to quicken is left for him to decide in hs unquestionable wisdom, it is Gods game and he plays by his rules!! the human can't solve spritual puzzles, infact it rebels against it, that is why the lord jesus talks about the childlike approach.

This childlike approach is why I asked you this question: since the Bible is full of 300,000 errors, do they also "come to life" as well? Are the "errors" also quickened?

@ post

The Bible is only a physical written compilation of many books, is it The real word of God given by the spirit?, it is a written account of things which God has designed for us to know.However since it was compiled by human it is bound to have errors, just like nature itself has got some errors, lke earthquake in some places,deformity from birth,some other inexplicable medical conditions from birth,sickle cell etc, the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life, before christ there were written words but when he came, the interpretation he gave to those words was what the spirit was telling him (Gods messege to him/world) at that time. you don't just use the mere written words mechanically with the human intellect like the pharasies did that was what set them on the collision course with christ , the spirit of the most high is living and dynamic and what he speaks at any point in time is bsed on his plans/will at that given time, the word of God can't be found in a book but it is delivered on a daily basis every second to those that truly serve God 'my sheep hears my voice ad they follow me' AT BEST THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE ONLY COMES TO LIFE WHEN QUICKEND IN THE PRESENT BY GOD TURNING THOSE WORDS TO ZOE/LIFE AdDING TO WHAT THE LORD IS SAYING TO YOU AT PRESENT, the written words can contradict itself with all the errors in the world based on human errors, but those who are truy in the spirit don't rely on the letter as it s but the quicknng of the words by the spirit of the living oracle himself!!BOTTOM LINE IS WE NEED TO SEEK GODS INTEPRETATION TO EVERYWORD WE SEE IN THE BIBLE, what we hear from him based on those words is in fact his words and not what we analyse or rationalise with our intellect, he speakes to hs true followeers when they listen every second[b][/b]his true words is direct,

Does a simple question have no answers?

pilgrim.1:

@chessguru,

This childlike approach is why I asked you this question: since the Bible is full of 300,000 errors, do they also "come to life" as well? Are the "errors" also quickened?

  the quikning and bringing to life has to do with what the spirit of the lord is communicating to a person at a particular ponit in time, if Gods decides to use what can be termed as error to fulfill his purpse, SO BE IT!!
and the human intellect can't question that successfully, it takes spiritual dicernment to do this, not by mans power or query!! however this s only hypothetical, Bottom line is The lord can use whatever pleases him to satify his purpose, and his words can never go back to him void!!

@chessguru,

Please clam down - I see this is upsetting you already. Many times in this thread, people start out on some assumptions; and when called to clear themselves, they resort to something else instead of what is being requested. Now yours:

chessguru:

the quikning and bringing to life has to do with what the spirit of the lord is communicating to a person at a particular ponit in time, if Gods decides to use what can be termed as error to fulfill his purpse, SO BE IT!!

Okay, that's what I hope Kunle would see. I really appreciate your response, even though that is not what my understanding yields. Kunle had mentioned that there are 300,000 translation errors in the popular KJV - probably in reference to someone else who just blandly assumed it so, and everyone is quoting that fellow without even verifying for themselves the veracity of that statement. The translation errors do not denigrate the message of the Bible - and that is what we all need to understand! However, the real problem here is not one of translation errors, but rather one that declares "my faith is not in the Bible". Can you see the difference?

chessguru:

and the human intellect can't question that successfully, it takes spiritual dicernment to do his, not by mans power or query!!

I don't think the "questioning" by human intellect is what this is all about. Even spiritual discernment we all talk about should be able to help us delineate the crux of this whole matter - it is whether or not one has a Biblical faith. That should not be difficult to understand, should it?

Edit:

chessguru:

however this s only hypothetical, Bottom line is The lord can use whatever pleases him to satify his purpose, and his words can never go back to him void!!

Okay, I hear. It is that "word" that does not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11) that we all would like to grasp - and again, that is based on whether someone has a Biblical faith or not.

@pilgrim.1
  UPSET? it is like you have no idea who chessguru is, i am completely new to Religious section and there is nothing a mortal can say that will upset/unnerve me, check my previous posts from A-Z to see this!!

Anyway, my point is, Our faith sure have its rot in the Bible but they that worship the lord or serve him must do so in spirit and in truth, if this constant communication with thelord in spirit is not present, the study of the bible becomes a mere exercise so , the Bottom line is that it is the spiritual aspect that makes the word of God the word of God, Not the printing press, there fore Whatever Human error you see is inconsequential to the living Faith!!

@chessguru,

chessguru:

@pilgrim.1
UPSET? it is like you have no idea who chessguru is, i am completely new to Religious section and there is nothing a mortal can say that will upset/unnerve me, check my previous posts from A-Z to see this!!

Good to know - that was why I appealed that you calmed down and let's talk.

chessguru:

Anyway, my point is, Our faith sure have its rot in the Bible but they that worship the lord or serve him must do so in spirit and in truth, if this constant communication with thelord in spirit is not present, the study of the bible becomes a mere exercise so , the Bottom line is that it is the spiritual aspect that makes the word of God the word of God, Not the printing press, there fore Whatever Human error you see is inconsequential to the living Faith!!

I see your point, and please don't misunderstand my premise. This very thing you're pointing out is what I first tried to point out in so many ways previously - but they were all misread. However, no one who has read me would deny the fact that some of those translations errors in many versions have been clearly stated in my previous posts: both the verses, what they state, and how they may/could be understood in comparison with other verses and translations.

The point is, I am very, very well aware of translation errors.

I only posed that question to you to help bring out something crucial: to categorically help state it to KunleOshob and his friends who are misunderstanding the issue between "errors" in translation and actual and deliberate UN[/b]biblical fiat. Inspite of the "translation errors" which I was well aware of before my becoming a Christian, the essential message of the Bible has never changed - and I can attest to its power in my life! That is what I have pointed out on page 1.

However, even with the translation errors or none at all, it is quite a different matter altogether for someone to say that "my faith is not in the Bible" - that is not a statement that says one has a Biblical faith, as distinct from another who says he has a Biblical faith.

If I, for instance, begin to discard several [b]books or passages of the same Bible - not because of errors in translation, but rather because I don't want them to be part of the Bible - the question people should be asking me is this: how could they be sure I'm proposing a Biblical faith if I don't want the Bible to speak for itself?

The problem now is a complaint about the political imbroglio in canonizing the Bible: who chose what books and why.

At the end of the day, the canon we have today has been quoted by the same people who say their faith is not in the Bible. No, that does not sound like they meant some passages in the Bible, but just plainly "the bible" itself! If their faith is not in the Bible, on what grounds is anyone going to help such people? If "the Bible" is the question (not parts of it), then NOTHING in the Bible should make sense or hold the faith of such people - they do not need to quote that same "Bible" anymore!

This is what many people do not realize - and that was why it was the very first question I asked KunleOshob. If his faith is not in the BIBLE, then what is the idea behind his quoting any part of the same BIBLE?

All the same, people should be careful when they make bland statements. More often than not, they are largely unaware of what their statements may be pointing others to - and if anyone has been missing it, I have asked him to come and answer to the logic that some have read out of his proposition.

Cheers.

@seeklove
I keep telling you to stop fighting my battles for me. Consider, there is a reason my Christ kept quiet when false accusations were made against him by the mob who cried "crucify Him." Its high time you start looking beyond the physical and judge from the spiritual. Now, I am not comparing myself to Christ, I am only trying to learn His ways. When you understand the spiritual reason for their malicious attacks, then rather than being upset you will feel sorry for them.
In my post I clearly put John in parenthesis after quoting. I clearly showed that I was quoting John, and not Mathew. Here is what I wrote:

justcool:
According to the gospel writers, the Jew fought against Christ with the scriptures. Hence according to mathew Jesus said to them:

"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." (John 5:39-40)(International standard version Bible)

Actually the Mathew there was a typo, which even a child can clearly see. Her accusation would have been justified if the quote was made and not in the bible or written by the gospel writers. Now tell me what is the point capitalizing on this, I clearly quoted John. Not only that, I gave a the version of the bible that i was quoting. Now ask youself, what is the point capitalizing on this?
Actually there is verse similar to that, in meaning in Mathew; but let the accuser find out him/herself. Consider that my post was only directed to Kunle.
Capitalizing on it is a childish strategy that losers employ. When a child is losing ground, he or she might start pointing unimportant things. Like a child will tell you, "your cloths are cheap" when he is losing an argument that has nothing to do with cloths. It simply show you that there is no flaw in my argument, so the attacker starts to bring in unimportant things like typos and punctuation. There is no flaws in my argument which he/she can hold on to. So he/she starts to hold on to unimportant things. And if you don't watch it, he/she would condescend to personal attacks.
And don't ever think that I am intimidated or running away from anybody. The truth speaks for itself; anger, accusations and etc are only found where the Truth is lacking. All these are attempts to drag you down to their level. So when I keep quite, its not that I am intimidated; I just don't want to be dragged down to that level.
I tell you what. Just print all my post in this thread, also print my attackers post. Take the print out and give to somebody who is unbiased, perhaps an American. And ask him/her "between my attacker and I, who is losing grounds?"
Learn to see beyond the physical.

@Chessguru

UPSET? it is like you have no idea who chessguru is, i am completely new to Religious section and there is nothing a mortal can say that will upset/unnerve me, check my previous posts from A-Z to see this!!

no need to lie eh

So why did you try to make them ban me

@justcool,

How body? I guess even that greeting may church something unfavorable in you if you are feeling indisposed towards my rejoinders. Anyhow, there are a few things that should be brought to the attention of posters who surreptitiously allege issues against others while assuming no one notices. Here are a few of those hints:

justcool:

@seeklove
I keep telling you to stop fighting my battles for me. Consider, there is a reason my Christ kept quiet when false accusations were made against him by the mob who cried "crucify Him." Its high time you start looking beyond the physical and judge from the spiritual. Now, I am not comparing myself to Christ, I am only trying to learn His ways. When you understand the spiritual reason for their malicious attacks, then rather than being upset you will feel sorry for them.

We don't need anyone to feel sorry for anyone, because if you have to be honest there are no malicious attacks other than your deliberately wanting to read it so. If I read something in yours which is questionable, I would call your attention to it rather than pretend it is okay for you to slur anyone and pray sunny day. And so I did call your attention to some of the things you previously posted which you should answer to, instead of assuming that anyone was attacking you maliciously thereto.

justcool:

In my post I clearly put John in parenthesis after quoting. I clearly showed that I was quoting John, and not Mathew. Here is what I wrote:

My dear, that's no excuse. You clearly said "according to Matthew" and yet you were quoting John. That you clearly put that latter in "parenthesis" is even more misleading, because you would be putting both as the same with a mark of synonym of one for the other - which again is wrong.

justcool:

Actually the Mathew there was a typo, which even a child can clearly see.

For crying out loud, if you knew it was a typo all along, why not clearly own up to it instead of trying to justify the same earlier? Did you not say that "Mathew said the same thing too"? Would it have been difficult to show us where Matthew said "the same" thing as you were to make us believe?

This is no big deal, justcool. It just simply shows that some who are quite at home to assume everyone else is oblivious of these matters, are not helping matters in making indefensible assertions.

justcool:

Her accusation would have been justified if the quote was made and not in the bible or written by the gospel writers. Now tell me what is the point capitalizing on this, I clearly quoted John. Not only that, I gave a the version of the bible that i was quoting. Now ask youself, what is the point capitalizing on this?

Just above I've given you the point as to why I used that as an example to show the attitude of the indefensible assertions some people make. Meanwhile, I was not accusing you, other than your deliberate mindset to read it so. You made misleading statements, tried to justify it earlier ("Mathew said the same thing too", and only now have come back to admit you were wrong. Is there any "attack, accusations" or "malice" in that?

justcool:

Actually there is verse similar to that, in meaning in Mathew; but let the accuser find out him/herself. Consider that my post was only directed to Kunle.

I will repeat: my post was not accusing you or anyone. Because you assume to be of a superior breed to always read "attack" and "assume", that is why I asked you to show me the very verse in Matthew that you still could not find up until now! I ask again: is that an amazingly difficult thing to do?

justcool:

Capitalizing on it is a childish strategy that losers employ.

Asserting it blankly without showing it is a popular device that continues to fail your grounds.

justcool:

When a child is losing ground, he or she might start pointing unimportant things. Like a child will tell you, "your cloths are cheap" when he is losing an argument that has nothing to do with cloths. It simply show you that there is no flaw in my argument, so the attacker starts to bring in unimportant things like typos and punctuation.

I guess you're crying your lullaby here in self-description of your post, yes? This is how you hope to pass as "trying to learn Christ's ways" while at pains to always cry that I was attacking you? Between me and you, justcool, who has used the word "typo" before now, after you have tried to justify what you have failed to present?

You see, this attitude you guys manifest is rather unfortunate. It is sadly a sanctimonious attitude that is not man enough to deal with issues without appealing to this under currents and insinuations while idealizing yourself as logically balanced. My saying this might bring out the cry of "malice, attacks, accusations, rudeness, fighting, insults', and "looking for trouble", as well a thousand other cries besides these; but there comes a time when these pretences should be clearly highlighted and bleached out so you guys know exactly what you address.

justcool:

There is no flaws in my argument which he/she can hold on to. So he/she starts to hold on to unimportant things. And if you don't watch it, he/she would condescend to personal attacks.

I have not resorted to "personal attacks" - go back and please show me who you meant in the language you employed in your rejoinder.

justcool:

And don't ever think that I am intimidated or running away from anybody. The truth speaks for itself; anger, accusations and etc are only found where the Truth is lacking. All these are attempts to drag you down to their level. So when I keep quite, its not that I am intimidated; I just don't want to be dragged down to that level.

I see. You can breathe easy now only after you have served your mindset, no?

justcool:

I tell you what. Just print all my post in this thread, also print my attackers post. Take the print out and give to somebody who is unbiased, perhaps an American. And ask him/her "between my attacker and I, who is losing grounds?"
Learn to see beyond the physical.

That shows us how much you're trying to "learn the ways of Christ". Well done.

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 [b]nothing [/b]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.

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 [b]nothing [/b]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.

Shows you how obstinate one can be when you are a religious fanatic.

While ppl are fretting there nerves, Luke have already stated it in the bible, for those of u that just read and pass without understand what he says. Luke said in the beginning of his boo:

1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

King James Version (KJV)

Cant u all see, he said: him having a perfect understanding. He didnt say I have inspiration from holy spirit. He didnt say it is word of God. He said my understanding. Why are ppl fretting about nothing. Luke did not claim to be writing on behalf of holy spirit or God. He writes based on his understanding. Who are u to come and say Luke said it is word of God. I think nobody is more holier, or wise than luke. If Luke knew it was not his understanding, he would have stated that clearly.

Tasma has a very good point. Everyone should read her post.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Shows you how obstinate one can be when you are a religious fanatic.

It's easy to point fingers at others, but that's okay.

@Tasma,

Hi there. Please allow me to make a few comments to correct some misconceptions.

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 [/b]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. [b]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.

It's obvious that you were pointing in my direction by the blue highlighted part in yours. No bother; but it would have helped if you took the time to understand a few basics I already pointed out.

From the onset, my first premise was to ask a simple question:
    _________________________________________________________________________

     The first thing I would like to ask is this: is your ‘Christian’ faith a Biblical one or not?
    _________________________________________________________________________

A simple yes or no is not costly; but he rather answered later on that his faith was not in the Bible. Now that is not the same thing as having a Biblical faith - I cared less if his faith was in a magazine. Nevermind that he was quite at home to hold others in ignorance for even asking about his presuppositions. Now, dear Tasma, what was so difficult in that simple question that has warranted this reaction where everyone has called me names directly and indirectly? I'm still thankful all the same, but if you guys had cared to be objective, it sure would have been easy enough to see what I had been pointing out.

I don't worship the scriptures; also, I've said clearly that even before my conversion, I was well aware of the translation errors in many versions. BUT, errors in translation is not the same thing as asking that certain portions of Scripture be removed altogether! In my replies, I had pointed that same thing out and two other issues: (a) the implication of his summations; and (b) what exactly are the books he regards as authentic in the Bible. Rather than point us to these, it was a glib response that was offered.

Errors in translation and asking that portions of scripture be not present in the Bible are not the same things. These two distinctions should not be difficult to see, no?

Tasma:

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.

In all honesty, while that is not the point in my replies as you assumed above, would it be such a difficult thing for you guys to also "have the courage to admit others might have a point even if it's something [you] don't feel disposed to agreeing with"? Is it so difficult to apply your own recommendation inward while asking others to take it?

Offtopic; I know. I just thought this might help us to reflect upon the passion of the people who claim to believe in God. Every group is defending what it holds dear. Even the docile monks can raise cane, sometimes.


Monks brawl at Christian holy site in Jerusalem
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share

Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By MATTI FRIEDMAN, Associated Press Writer Matti Friedman, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 57 mins ago AP – Israeli police scuffle with an Armenian monk next to the site traditionally believed to be the tomb of …

Slideshow: Rival monks brawl at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher JERUSALEM – Israeli police rushed into one of Christianity's holiest churches Sunday and arrested two clergyman after an argument between monks erupted into a brawl next to the site of Jesus' tomb.

The clash between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks broke out in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, revered as the site of Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection.

The brawling began during a procession of Armenian clergymen commemorating the 4th-century discovery of the cross believed to have been used to crucify Jesus.

The Greeks objected to the march without one of their monks present, fearing that otherwise, the procession would subvert their own claim to the Edicule — the ancient structure built on what is believed to be the tomb of Jesus — and give the Armenians a claim to the site.

The Armenians refused, and when they tried to march the Greek Orthodox monks blocked their way, sparking the brawl.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said police were forced to intervene after fighting was reported. They arrested two monks, one from each side, he said.

A bearded Armenian monk in a red-and-pink robe and a black-clad Greek Orthodox monk with a bloody gash on his forehead were both taken away in handcuffs after scuffling with dozens of riot police.

Six Christian sects divide control of the ancient church. They regularly fight over turf and influence, and Israeli police are occasionally forced to intervene.

"We were keeping resistance so that the procession could not pass through , and establish a right that they don't have," said a young Greek Orthodox monk with a cut next to his left eye.

The monk, who gave his name as Serafim, said he sustained the wound when an Armenian punched him from behind and broke his glasses.

Father Pakrat of the Armenian Patriarchate said the Greek demand was "against the status quo arrangement and against the internal arrangement of the Holy Sepulcher." He said the Greeks attacked first.

Archbishop Aristarchos, the chief secretary of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate, denied his monks initiated the violence.

After the brawl, the church was crowded with Israeli riot police holding assault rifles, standing beside Golgotha, where Jesus is believed to have been crucified, and the long smooth stone marking the place where tradition holds his body was laid out.

The feud is only one of a bewildering array of rivalries among churchmen in the Holy Sepulcher.

The Israeli government has long wanted to build a fire exit in the church, which regularly fills with thousands of pilgrims and has only one main door, but the sects cannot agree where the exit will be built.

A ladder placed on a ledge over the entrance sometime in the 19th century has remained there ever since because of a dispute over who has the authority to take it down.

More recently, a spat between Ethiopian and Coptic Christians is delaying badly needed renovations to a rooftop monastery that engineers say could collapse.

@Pilgrim:

I don't worship the scriptures; also, I've said clearly that even before my conversion, I was well aware of the translation errors in many versions. BUT, errors in translation is not the same thing as asking that certain portions of Scripture be removed altogether! In my replies, I had pointed that same thing out and two other issues: (a) the implication of his summations; and (b) what exactly are the books he regards as authentic in the Bible. Rather than point us to these, it was a glib response that was offered.

Errors in translation and asking that portions of scripture be not present in the Bible are not the same things. These two distinctions should not be difficult to see, no?

Before one can admit that something is erronous, one must have in hand what is correct, in order to make such a bold claim. How did you arrive at the "translation errors in many versions?" Is there an original without any error?

I wonder how a person can see very clearly, by your own admission above, that there are "errors" in many translations, yet still find the strength to enter into what is not "without error," head first, unless you can show us, a pure and error free translation or original?

Did you go into this new religion because of the promise that a god will carry your burden from you, or something relating to this effect, since your former religion, Islam preaches "individual responsibility of deeds?"

If you were aware of these errors before conversion, I wonder how long your first introduction to the Bible, before you left Islam? A week, a month, a year, while comparing the two, reading them for understanding and differences in their position on any subject matter? Please entighten us, if not at least me.

@pilgrim
The finger thingy is quite old my dear, abi are you saying na you holy pass?

Chrisbenogor:

@pilgrim
The finger thingy is quite old my dear, abi are you saying na you holy pass?

Did I make any such claims?

olabowale:

If you were aware of these errors before conversion, I wonder how long your first introduction to the Bible, before you left Islam?

I have said so so so many times already that theology did not settle the matter of my conversion for me. I was also well aware of so, so many translation errors of the Quran before my conversion.

@Pilgrim.1: You seem not to get it; is arabic Qur'an not the Qur'an you used for your Salah, etc? In Yorubaland, with all the beauty of that language, at least to me, have you ever heard an accepted recitation of Surah fatiha in Yoruba before?

let me help you; even in an event as ordinary as child naming event, has the yoruba reciters broken to "Ni Oruko Olorun, Alanu julo, alajipele eson"; Bismillahi Rahmanir Rahim? That right there will show you that when you speak about the Qur'an, it is in Arabic alone. That is accepted worldwide, and right from the time of the Prophet himself (AS).

Now use the same datum for the Bible; give me a Bible in the original text and language from the time of Jesus, or any early generations. Say from the time that the Lord of Jesus lifted him up to Himself; alive in body and soul?

The first thing I would like to ask is this: is your ‘Christian’ faith a Biblical one or not?

If Christian faith is soly Biblical, then Trinity is dead. Interestingly, you aluded to "errors" in many versions. Would therefore the faith of any person based on that "Bible" not be erronous? There is no way you can have a purity, without errors on an idea that its premise is precipitated on "Error!" At best the idea will have just the same amount of deficiency in the same degree as the amount of errors in what the idea is formatted upon.

And by the way, I am not bashing the Bible or Christianity. I am just reading your piece and responding to it, as it is appropriate. I know you will acuse me in a quick New York minute.

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:

@Pilgrim.1: You seem not to get it; is arabic Qur'an not the Qur'an you used for your Salah, etc?
. . .

And by the way, I am not bashing the Bible or Christianity. I am just reading your piece and responding to it, as it is appropriate. I know you will acuse me in a quick New York minute.

First, I am not bashing Islam; but the muslim's endless arguments about how Christianity is this, that and the other is one reason that got me thinking and made me leave Islam. I have not come over to bother you, so I wonder why your blood is always restless wherever you see "pilgrim.1".

Second, we have been through this issue about the errors in many versions of the translated Quran. We have been through this discussion before - and even you had to admit that there are various readings of the arabic quran. Why do you often pretend that you have forgotten this very thing and keep repeating the same drivel every single time in every thread, Olabowale? Why are you so given to this tireless duplicity?

A reminder to the thread where we have discussed this very issue:

 The 5 versions of the Arabic Koran:

 (here - someone else pointed your problem out)

 (my reply to your own preference of different readings)

 (this is one reason why your penchant to be openly deceptive no longer interests me).

@pilgrim
even David, (whom we all know  ) found sense in Tasma's post. But you still find a bone to pick from it.  Girl, chill, you've got issues!

@olabowale

pls, don't start discussions  with this babe here, you know what she's gonna turn it into.

Let us not derail the topic.

Kunle is asking a question and trying not to blasphemeing!

ayinba1:

@pilgrim
even David, (whom we all know ) found sense in Tasma's post. But you still find a bone to pick from it. Girl, chill, you've got issues!

@ayinba1,

Thanks. I didn't say Tasma's posts didn't make any sense, did I? You see, ayinba1, if you've got any issues, don't be shy to say so instead of scuttling round to put it on me. What people don't understand (as Tasma indirectly was referring to me) was what I set out plainly. Miss that, no worries.

ayinba1:

@pilgrim
even David, (whom we all know ) found sense in Tasma's post. But you still find a bone to pick from it. Girl, chill, you've got issues!

Abeg no use my name to score points o

this is about as far as i agree with Tasma's post and it is succintly put here -

pilgrim.1:

Errors in translation and asking that portions of scripture be not present in the Bible are not the same things. These two distinctions should not be difficult to see, no?

The bible tells us - the letter killeth but it is the spirit that gives life. the bible is not meant to be read as a literary exercise but as God's silent voice to the soul that is guided by the Holy Ghost.

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.

olabowale:

@Pilgrim:
[size=18pt]Before one can admit that something is erronous, one must have in hand what is correct, in order to make such a bold claim. How did you arrive at the "translation errors in many versions?" Is there an original without any error?[/size]

This man is a disgusting hypocrite!

Now lets turn this around a bit . . .

Before the quran/mohammed/allah can admit that the bible is erroneous, they must have in hand what is correct, in order to make such a bold/false/deceitful/ claim. How did they arrive at the "errors" in the bible? Where is the original bible they used to make such a comparison?

DavidDylan:

the bible is not meant to be read as a literary exercise but as God's silent voice to the soul that is guided by the Holy Ghost.

"We know that errors in translations are bound to occur in almost any book - whether religious or secular!" (since early this year, I already pointed that out).

@pilgrim

try to surprise me one of these days.

@David

you too,, sooooo predictable!

ayinba1:

@pilgrim

try to surprise me one of these days.

Just as you do, no?