OkCornel:
Very good...

Just to confirm... the "Tree of Life" does not differ from its original word unlike that of Tree of good and evil which stands for beauty and adversity per your research?

After this, let's allow the thread revert back to its status quo...

I am happy to grant you your wish,
I am not making up what the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil means.
By the way, it's Beautiful, not Beauty.
Beautiful, as in everything dandy and good
Adversity, as in every hardship, bad and ugly thing that possibly can happen.

So far, and all a long, this is valuable information we've been sharing with each other

MuttleyLaff:
I am happy to grant you your wish,
I am not making up what the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil means.
By the way, it's Beautiful, not Beauty.
Beautiful, as in everything dandy and good
Adversity, as in every hardship, bad and ugly thing that possibly can happen.

So far, and all a long, this is valuable information we've been sharing with each other

Thanks for your patience bro... I understand the original words and meaning for the Good and Evil part

Please I'm still asking if the Tree of Life has an original word for it...or its original word remains Tree of Life as well...

Thanks once more

OkCornel:
Thanks for your patience bro...
I understand the original words and meaning for the Good and Evil part

Please I'm still asking if the Tree of Life has an original word for it...or its original word remains Tree of Life as well...

Thanks once more

No brother, I never for once was impatient

Oh I get you now.
The phrase the Tree of Life remains as it is with the original wording

MuttleyLaff:
No brother, I never for once was impatient

Oh I get you now.
The phrase the Tree of Life remains as it is with the original wording

Thanks...

Okay, any other contradictions or confusion or misunderstanding from the Bible to discuss?

Lie 001. Mary becoming pregnant without any artificial penetration.


Lie 002.
Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Lie 003.
Révélation 7v1
Revelation 7 King James Version (KJV)
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Can wind be held?

Lie 004
Numbers 22v28-30 - talking donkey

Lie 005
Genesis 3v1 - talking serpent

Will add more later

OkCornel:
Okay, any other contradictions or confusion or misunderstanding from the Bible to discuss?

You haven't addressed mine, all the explanations given for who bought the land has failed

Also, you guys didn't address how Abijah was able to talk to 1,200,000 soldiers at once

hopefulLandlord:


You haven't addressed mine, all the explanations given for who bought the land has failed

Also, you guys didn't address how Abijah was able to talk to 1,200,000 soldiers at once

How was Jesus able to talk to 5thousand men, not counting women and children.

Lol, you have no argument concerning Judas's piece of land. Let me even go back there.

I have very busy.

Emmanystone:

How was Jesus able to talk to 5thousand men, not counting women and children.

Lol, you have no argument concerning Judas's piece of land. Let me even go back there.

I have very busy.

5000, while difficult is still plausible even if you triple it you'll get around 1/100 of 1,200,000. also, Jesus had superpowers and fed them with 5 loaves and 2 fishes so its possible he used his superpowers too for the preaching

I hope you're not pulling false equivalence here?

hopefulLandlord:


You haven't addressed mine, all the explanations given for who bought the land has failed

Also, you guys didn't address how Abijah was able to talk to 1,200,000 soldiers at once

All the explanations given for who bought the land failed because you did not understand it...or you chose not to understand it...

And were in the bible did Abijah address 1.2 million soldiers at once?

Anyways, consider this possibility 1;

He addressed those at the front line to the extent his voice was heard...and those at the front spread the message around like wild fire...just like how rumors/gossips spread around quickly in a short while...

Please don't tell me you were expecting him to hold a microphone with loud speakers to address the crowd at once


There's another slightly possible theory 2;

If Abijah is on an elevated platform and the wind blows heavily towards the direction of the soldiers...the wind can help in amplifying his voice (if he's not speaking against the direction of the wind...) these guys are intelligent tacticians who would have studied the terrain of where they are to know the best angles to speak from considering the direction the wind blows...before choosing which elevated platform to speak from...

These are just my thoughts... by the way, if you speak towards the direction of the wind...does it help amplify your voice? Does science counter this or proves this? My humble question sir...

hopefulLandlord:


5000, while difficult is still plausible even if you triple it you'll get around 1/100 of 1,200,000. also, Jesus had superpowers and fed them with 5 loaves and 2 fishes so its possible he used his superpowers too for the preaching

I hope you're not pulling false equivalence here?

How did the Roman emperors or leaders speak to the people at the collisseum or amphitheaters without the use of a microphone?

Your answer might lie in there...

hopefulLandlord:


You haven't addressed mine, all the explanations given for who bought the land has failed

Also, you guys didn't address how Abijah was able to talk to 1,200,000 soldiers at once

That scripture says Abijah stood on a mount and his soldiers were in a valley below. Who knows how far his voice carried in this natural setting? But the Bible doesn't say every single one of the soldiers heard Abijah. Does every single soldier need to personally hear the command of the top officer before he carries out orders?

Besides, one would have to assume that Abijah must have had a rather loud voice which was aided by the valley as it must have acted like an echo chamber or a sound magnifier by virtue of it being a valley (naturally).

OkCornel:


How did the Roman emperors or leaders speak to the people at the collisseum or amphitheaters without the use of a microphone?

Your answer might lie in there...

It does. The valley acted like an amplifier of sound. The design of a coliseum or amphitheatres back then were done in such a way as to magnify sound. Same principle was at play in the valley when Abijah spoke to the soldiers from the mount where he stood.

adepeter2027:
Lie 001. Mary becoming pregnant without any artificial penetration.


Lie 002.
Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Lie 003.
Révélation 7v1
Revelation 7 King James Version (KJV)
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Can wind be held?

Lie 004
Numbers 22v28-30 - talking donkey

Lie 005
Genesis 3v1 - talking serpent

Will add more later

My response to some of your observations

1) Go and do some research on the DNA of Jesus...the DNA test shows there is no chromosome tracing Him to an earthly father;
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/the-blood-of-christ/

2) Thinking the Sun is the only source of light on the Universe is false...lemme ask, what is the source of light in the Universe?

3) John wrote what he saw using the best expression and terms at that point in time...the original meaning of which could be twisted out of context while interpreting the Bible into English from Latin (which was also translated from Greek and Hebrew)... My advice, don't take the writings at face value...do a deeper study into the original writings of John in whichever language he wrote the book of Revelation in...

4) Concerning the "talking" serpent...I hope you understand what telepathic communication is... there's a level of communication where messages are exchanged without signs or speech... Man operated at that level before the fall... Jesus (the 2nd Adam) operated at that level especially when he was talking with the Pharisees...

The whole "Noah's Ark" story. Lol.

hopefulLandlord:

My position is still as valid as ever, lmao! so you thought and thought for hours then came up with this? hahaha

Lolzzz, i had to think for hours to answer what exactly? You are having this argument for want of what to say, for there's absolutely no meat in your argument.

hopefulLandlord:

He threw the money at them and they asked him what he wanted them to do with the money!!

Yet you said he didn't consent to them buying the land to bury him? See as you dey tie yourself robe.

hopefulLandlord:

You're making it sound like the priests didn't ask him

So the priests asked him what he wanted them to do with his money abi? And he said, i'm out right now to kill myself, you can use the money to buy me a piece of land where you'd bury me when am dead. Yet you are arguing that the money was no longer Judas'? Hahahahaha. No enter pit o

hopefulLandlord:

He consented that the money is no longer his! that's exactly where the consent stopped

You are so confused.

He threw back the money at them, according to you, they asked him what they shd do with the money, and since they used the money to buy land, it follows that that is what he told them to do with the money. But here you are saying, he consented that the money is no longer his. (This sounds like it's coming from a 4yrs old), no offence.

Have you ever bought anything from an ibo man but decided to take it back? Hahahahahahaha. Damaged goods.

Your stance wld have made sense if the Priests took the money from him with appreciation. Na wa for you o.

hopefulLandlord:

what difference does that make exactly? you seem to be grasping at straws here

Lol @ who is grabbing at straws is quick to accuse me of doing so.

Judas sold his friend out, he got proceeds from that transaction, the deal was closed, the money was in his possession, after awhile, he goes back to say, ' I no want the money again, the Jews who have been planning on killing Jesus even when they He was innocent, refused to take the money back. That he threw the money in the temple, didn't make the money another person's. It was still his, because he worked for it.

hopefulLandlord:

If the victim's family took the money and bought something with it then THEY bought that something NOT the kidnapper!

The Operative Word here is 'If'. If the victims family took back the money saying, Afterall it's our money, then went on to call the police, then you can say, whatever the victims family did with the money, the kidnapper's consent wasn't in it.

But, instead of collecting the money, the victims called the police. Let's assume that before the police arrived, the kidnapper shot himself dead, will the money be regarded as the kidnaper's or the victim's family's?

If the police, not knowing how to locate the kidnappers family, decides to bury him, can they use that money for that purpose? Oga me na wa.

hopefulLandlord:

I've been through this before so I'm prepared for any angle you want to divert to

The more i respond the more i realize you are arguing for want of something to say.

hopefulLandlord:

Of course not, your analogy fails on many grounds
They would've simply not let him leave without the money,

Since they forcefully made him sell out his friend abi? They should have force him to go away with the money because they sort him out asking if he could betray Jesus abi? The way i remember it, He carried his two left legs and walked up to them, because following Jesus about, he knew the Jews had been looking for opportunity to kill him, so he volunteered to help them out.

He sat with them, he negotiated the price, he collected it without any force, how then do expect them to force him to back his money.

You don't want it anymore doesn't stop the money from being yours, except you find someone who accepts the money from you.

hopefulLandlord:

immediately they asked him what he wanted them to do with the money and he said they can do whatever they want, they have become the full owner of the money or at least Judas no longer has ownership of the money. That conversation changes a lot

It would have been so, if they accepted the money from him.

Did they accept the money back? If they did, why then did he threw it in the Temple?
Na him and the Temple negotiate the price of Christ's death?

Hope abeg stop this small pikin argument. If i knew your post was this childish i'd not have bothered answering after a tiring day.

hopefulLandlord:


its simple English babe

Not germane

It's not about English, its about Context. You are trying to twist the context out of joint.

Am done here,

And, i'm not 'babe' to you.

Hard to find any lies or contradictions once you believe by faith. Faith can make a virgin pregnant, a snake talk, a donkey whine.

A man who shuns logic to reach a position, can rarely be rescued by logic.

hopefulLandlord:


5000, while difficult is still plausible even if you triple it you'll get around 1/100 of 1,200,000. also, Jesus had superpowers and fed them with 5 loaves and 2 fishes so its possible he used his superpowers too for the preaching

I hope you're not pulling false equivalence here?

You mean the Holy Spirit who empowered Jesus with Superpowers wasn't the same in Abijah? Why you dey put mouth for matter wey you no sabi?

Jesus had preached to 7000 men, women and children who are usually more than men, not countered, before feeding them with seven loaves. How did he do it?

By the power of the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit who empowered Abijah

Emmanystone:

You mean the Holy Spirit who empowered Jesus with Superpowers wasn't the same in Abijah?

butterflyl1on:


That scripture says Abijah stood on a mount and his soldiers were in a valley below. Who knows how far his voice carried in this natural setting? But the Bible doesn't say every single one of the soldiers heard Abijah. Does every single soldier need to personally hear the command of the top officer before he carries out orders?

Besides, one would have to assume that Abijah must have had a rather loud voice which was aided by the valley as it must have acted like an echo chamber or a sound magnifier by virtue of it being a valley (naturally).

You forget the man had super powers. The man had the power of the Holy Spirit resident in him.

butterflyl1on:


That scripture says Abijah stood on a mount and his soldiers were in a valley below. Who knows how far his voice carried in this natural setting? But the Bible doesn't say every single one of the soldiers heard Abijah. Does every single soldier need to personally hear the command of the top officer before he carries out orders?

Besides, one would have to assume that Abijah must have had a rather loud voice which was aided by the valley as it must have acted like an echo chamber or a sound magnifier by virtue of it being a valley (naturally).

well played bro. well played.

too much gladiators and god of war don dey worry you.

OkCornel:


My response to some of your observations

1) Go and do some research on the DNA of Jesus...the DNA test shows there is no chromosome tracing Him to an earthly father;
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/the-blood-of-christ/

Biblical DNA Research or Scientific DNA research?

2) Thinking the Sun is the only source of light on the Universe is false...lemme ask, what is the source of light in the Universe?

I don't know what are the other sources of light and what illuminates other planet. But I don't mind if you do tell me..

3) John wrote what he saw using the best expression and terms at that point in time...the original meaning of which could be twisted out of context while interpreting the Bible into English from Latin (which was also translated from Greek and Hebrew)... My advice, [b]don't take the writings at face value...[/b]do a deeper study into the original writings of John in whichever language he wrote the book of Revelation in...

I seem to be lost at the emboldened

Do you mean to say I'm taking the term out of context or what?
Now I would like know, why didn't the bible use the right term? Why didn't the bible say Satan was the person crucified on the cross?

4) Concerning the "talking" serpent...I hope you understand what telepathic communication is... there's a level of communication where messages are exchanged without signs or speech... Man operated at that level before the fall... Jesus (the 2nd Adam) operated at that level especially when he was talking with the Pharisees...

So the word and miracles of a So called god do change from time to time? So after the fall of man, telepathic communication ceased?
Anyways, hope you know there is/was record of a talking donkey after the fall of man? What can you say about that?

Double post

adepeter2027:

Biblical DNA Research or Scientific DNA research?

I don't know what are the other sources of light and what illuminates other planet. But I don't mind if you do tell me..

I seem to be lost at the emboldened

Do you mean to say I'm taking the term out of context or what?
Now I would like know, why didn't the bible use the right term? Why didn't the bible say Satan was the person crucified on the cross?

So the word and miracles of a So called god do change from time to time? So after the fall of man, telepathic communication ceased?
Anyways, hope you know there is/was record of a talking donkey after the fall of man? What can you say about that?

1) What would a biblical DNA test be doing on National Geographic for goodness sake? It's a Scientific test.

2) Light existed before the Sun existed...that's the point here...study the structure of the galaxies and notice how the core is brighter than the other parts...

3) The answer to your question is simple. Ask yourself if the original bible was written in English. If no is your answer, then ask yourself if those who did the translation from Hebrew & Greek to Latin and subsequently English did not interpret any part of it out of context. As for Satan dying on the cross for your sins...ride on...even if the interpreters quoted certain things out of context, I never knew you would think they quoted "the entire bible" out of context...

4) Man lost a lot of abilities after the fall, eternal life was one of it, telepathic communication was just another bit of it.

5) I remain neutral on the story of a talking donkey...as it is, I do not trust the English bible 100%. And before you make a big deal out of this, go and read my first post on this thread...my reason for saying this was clearly stated there...

Emmanystone:

Lolzzz, i had to think for hours to answer what exactly? You are having this argument for want of what to say, for there's absolutely no meat in your argument.

You left my post at page one and replied to it at page 6 or so

There's a wide time between both and its hours!

Yet you said he didn't consent to them buying the land to bury him? See as you dey tie yourself robe.

Please, stop defeating your own point with inanities, the question is WHO bought the land,

You lots are concentrating only on the money while I'm asking WHO used the money to buy the land!

It seems you've been lost in this since and you can go back to when I laid out the question

So the priests asked him what he wanted them to do with his money abi? And he said, i'm out right now to kill myself, you can use the money to buy me a piece of land where you'd bury me when am dead. Yet you are arguing that the money was no longer Judas'? Hahahahaha. No enter pit o

What in seven FSM hell is this? is this sarcasm or what? when exactly did he tell them to buy something for him?

You are so confused.

look in the mirror to see the confused person

He threw back the money at them, according to you, they asked him what they shd do with the money, and since they used the money to buy land, it follows that that is what he told them to do with the money. But here you are saying, he consented that the money is no longer his. (This sounds like it's coming from a 4yrs old), no offence.

This is simply wrong (edited)

it seems you don't read your own bible (like most Christians I know)

If you read the account of the priests buying the land you'll see that they took the money, then DELIBERATED amongst THEMSELVES what to do with it as they don't want to add it to the treasury, THEN settled on BUYING the land

Judas was not there FOR the deliberation and the eventual decision so its absolute nonsense to say what you just sad

meanwhile, the other account said he bought the land and killed himself on it!

The question here is WHO bought the land and obviously the contradiction on WHO is obvious

Look into the mirror to see the 4 yo

Have you ever bought anything from an ibo man but decided to take it back? Hahahahahahaha. Damaged goods.

you're shooting yourself in the foot, again, as usual

I'm 100% sure if you throw the goods at him after rejecting the goods he sold to you and he asks you "What do you want me to do with this good(s)?" and you say "You can do whatever the hell you want with it" and you leave, you CAN'T come back to claim the good(s) again

If he sells the same goods you returned to another person, he CAN'T say YOU sold it to that person

Your stance wld have made sense if the Priests took the money from him with appreciation. Na wa for you o.

My stance still makes as much sense as ever due to the conversation that ensued AFTER he rejected the money which you're, apparently, not conversant with

Whether they took it WITH appreciation or not is inconsequential, they took the money and asked him what he wanted them to do with it and he said they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. The conversation changes a lot and afterwards (when Judas had left) the priests deliberated on what to do with the Money and THEY used the money to buy a land!

Lol @ who is grabbing at straws is quick to accuse me of doing so.

You're, as always

Judas sold his friend out, he got proceeds from that transaction, the deal was closed, the money was in his possession, after awhile, he goes back to say, ' I no want the money again, the Jews who have been planning on killing Jesus even when they He was innocent, refused to take the money back. That he threw the money in the temple, didn't make the money another person's. It was still his, because he worked for it.

WHO is my question not WHAT!

The Operative Word here is 'If'. If the victims family took back the money saying, Afterall it's our money, then went on to call the police, then you can say, whatever the victims family did with the money, the kidnapper's consent wasn't in it.

again, you seem not to understand that IF they bought something with the money, whatever they bought, they bought with it they can't buy something with it and say the criminal bought the it!

personality is the question NOT the what so your analogy still favours me and does you the opposite

But, instead of collecting the money, the victims called the police. Let's assume that before the police arrived, the kidnapper shot himself dead, will the money be regarded as the kidnaper's or the victim's family's?

You're concentrating on the wrong part here

answer this question

IF they took the money and bought bags of foodstuffs with it, can they tell the police that the criminal bought those bags of foodstuffs?

If the police, not knowing how to locate the kidnappers family, decides to bury him, can they use that money for that purpose? Oga me na wa.

then THE POLICE used the money to bury the criminal!

its the WHO I'm asking here

The more i respond the more i realize you are arguing for want of something to say.

actually the more you respond the more certain I am you didn't even understand the question

Since they forcefully made him sell out his friend abi? They should have force him to go away with the money because they sort him out asking if he could betray Jesus abi? The way i remember it, He carried his two left legs and walked up to them, because following Jesus about, he knew the Jews had been looking for opportunity to kill him, so he volunteered to help them out.

This isn't pertinent at all

He sat with them, he negotiated the price, he collected it without any force, how then do expect them to force him to back his money.

WHO not WHAT!

You don't want it anymore doesn't stop the money from being yours, except you find someone who accepts the money from you.


It would have been so, if they accepted the money from him.

Did they accept the money back? If they did, why then did he threw it in the Temple?
Na him and the Temple negotiate the price of Christ's death?

Hope abeg stop this small pikin argument. If i knew your post was this childish i'd not have bothered answering after a tiring day.

It's not about English, its about Context. You are trying to twist the context out of joint.

Am done here,

And, i'm not 'babe' to you.

Still shows you don't understand the question at all

My talking about the money was just to show the clear contradiction between the two accounts. One said he rejected the money and hanged himself and the CHIEF PRIESTS used the money to buy the land while another said JUDAS used the money to buy a land and hanged himself on it

Edit: The part about "babe" was a slip cuz I was talking to another girl on BBM, my brain multitasked in a bizarre manner and I didn't mean to flirt with you, I don't flirt on Nairaland

Who wrote the book of Deuteronomy

A) Moses
B) Angel Michael
C) Joshua
D) Nnamdi Kanu

"So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD."
Deuteronomy:34:5

So Moses wrote his own funeral?

"And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."
Deuteronomy:34:6

He also wrote the aftermath?

hopefulLandlord:

You left my post at page one and replied to it at page 6 or so

There's a wide time between both and its hours!

Please, stop defeating your own point with inanities, the question is WHO bought the land,

You lots are concentrating only on the money while I'm asking WHO used the money to buy the land!

It seems you've been lost in this since and you can go back to when I laid out the question


What in seven FSM hell is this? is this sarcasm or what? when exactly did he tell them to buy something for him?

look in the mirror to see the confused person


This is simply wrong (edited)

it seems you don't read your own bible (like most Christians I know)
If you read the account of the priests buying the land you'll see that they took the money, then DELIBERATED amongst THEMSELVES what to do with it as they don't want to add it to the treasury, THEN settled on BUYING the land

Judas was not there FOR the deliberation and the eventual decision so its absolute nonsense to say what you just sad

meanwhile, the other account said he bought the land and killed himself on it!

The question here is WHO bought the land and obviously the contradiction on WHO is obvious
Look into the mirror to see the 4 yo

you're shooting yourself in the foot, again, as usual

I'm 100% sure if you throw the goods at him after rejecting the goods he sold to you and he asks you "What do you want me to do with this good(s)?" and you say "You can do whatever the hell you want with it" and you leave, you CAN'T come back to claim the good(s) again

If he sells the same goods you returned to another person, he CAN'T say YOU sold it to that person

My stance still makes as much sense as ever due to the conversation that ensued AFTER he rejected the money which you're, apparently, not conversant with

Whether they took it WITH appreciation or not is inconsequential, they took the money and asked him what he wanted them to do with it and he said they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. The conversation changes a lot and afterwards (when Judas had left) the priests deliberated on what to do with the Money and THEY used the money to buy a land!

You're, as always
WHO, is my question, not WHAT!

again, you seem not to understand that,
IF they bought something with the money, whatever they bought, they bought with it,
they can't buy something with it and say the criminal bought the it!

Oh yes, they can

hopefulLandlord:
personality is the question NOT the what so your analogy still favours me and does you the opposite

You're concentrating on the wrong part here
answer this question
IF they took the money and bought bags of foodstuffs with it, can they tell the police that the criminal bought those bags of foodstuffs?
then THE POLICE used the money to bury the criminal!
its the WHO I'm asking here
actually the more you respond the more certain I am you didn't even understand the question
This isn't pertinent at all
WHO, not WHAT!

Whose money bought it?
Whose nau? Who is the owner of the money that bought it?
Is the money the priests', or is it Judas'?

hopefulLandlord:
Still shows you don't understand the question at all

Its you who doesnt at all, understand each correct answers given you
Read the coming below on what's the meaning of the phrase "Bought the farm"
Dont weep but please try to learn after from reading it

hopefulLandlord:
My talking about the money was just to show the clear contradiction between the two accounts.
One said he rejected the money and hanged himself and the CHIEF PRIESTS used the money to buy the land while another said JUDAS used the money to buy a land and hanged himself on it
Edit: The part about "babe" was a slip cuz I was talking to another girl on BBM, my brain multitasked in a bizarre manner and I didn't mean to flirt with you, I don't flirt on Nairaland

What's the meaning of the phrase 'Bought the farm'?

The New York Times Magazine, March 1954, had a related phrase, in a glossary of jet pilots' slang:
"Bought a plot, had a fatal crash."

That clearly refers to a burial plot.
The 'bought' in that case probably doesn't suggest any actual or potential purchase, but to an earlier use of 'bought', that is, being killed.
This dates back to at least the early 20th century.

This example from 1943 isn't the earliest, but it does make the meaning explicit.
It's from Cyril Ward-Jackson's It's a piece of cake; or, R.A.F. slang made easy:
"He's bought it, he is dead - that is, he has paid with his life."

Specific references to 'the farm' come a little later.
There are reports of the phrase being in use in the US military from 1955 onward.
Here's a citation from 1963, in Ed Miller's Exile to the Stars:
"The police dispatcher says a plane just bought the farm."

There are a few suggested derivations for the phrase.
One, put forward in a 1955 edition of American Speech,
is the idea that when a jet crashes on a farm the farmer may sue the government for compensation.
That would generate a large enough amount of money to pay off the farm's mortgage.
Hence, the pilot paid for the farm with his life.

Another suggestion is the idea that, if a serviceman was killed in action,
his family would receive a payout from the insurance that service personnel were issued with.
This would be sufficient to pay off the family mortgage.
Culled from https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/72850.html

Lastly, a scenario:
Man, before going to work to earn money to pay for everything needed in the house,
gave some money to missus to buy groceries for the family.
Missus, gives part of money to one of her sons, asking him, to go buy a pint of milk for her from the shops
Son, skips to shop and returns back with a carton of milk
Depending on your perspective, Man, missus and son, each and all bought the milk, you do accept. Right?

LordVoldermort:
Who wrote the book of Deuteronomy

A) Moses
B) Angel Michael
C) Joshua
D) Nnamdi Kanu

"So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD."
Deuteronomy:34:5

So Moses wrote his own funeral?

"And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."
Deuteronomy:34:6

He also wrote the aftermath?

A book can have more than one author...for example, Psalms was not written by David alone...neither was Proverbs written by Solomon alone...

Moses indeed had an input to the book of Deuteronomy....but not the entire book.

Next question...

Emmanystone:

No sir. Let me clear you up.
In the past YHWH dealt with Nations, whole families, with their kings, leaders and Father's as representatives of the people. Kings, leaders and fathers, gets to stand and pass down info to those under them, meaning, if the king, leader or father worshipps idols, those under them will do so, hence;the judgement which goes to the kings, leaders and heads of families, goes to their subjects.

We see this in Genesis, when the Israelites as a Nation were almost destroyed for rebellion, but Moses prevailed over YHWH.

We also see it in Numbers 16;18 where Dathan, Korah and Abiram revolted against Moses, them as the heads of their families and their entire households were swallowed up by the earth.

Again, we see YHWH bringing Judgement against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and we see Abraham, prevailing over YHWH, if there were up to 10 innocent men in there, those cities wld ve been saved.

Again, we see it in Ezekiel as YHWH brought swift Judgement on the entire population because of the sins of few men. In Ezekiel 11:13, again, we see Ezekiel prevailing over YHWH in behalf of the people. Then in Chapter 18 where you quoted, the Lors was entreated and decided 'fine, i will no lnger bring Judgment on all becos of what others have done'. The soul that sins let that soul die the dead.

In Luke 18:3, we also see a Judge who was b
Pressed down into doing what he didn't want to do, but changed his mind because he was entreated and importuned upon.

What does this tell us? We can entreat the Lord and make Him change His mind, when we intercede for others. THE LORD CHANGES HIS MIND FROM destroying us when we repent.

That's love if you ask me.

But isn't god soppose to be the same yesterday today and for ever?



Checkmate!!!

butterflyl1on:


Correction! What we have there is not a contradiction but an explanation.

The book of acts was written by Luke who was a doctor. It is known that doctors offer detail to deaths.

Judas did not fall and have his middle burst open by a fall. In fact the skin is too tough to burst open just like that over a fall.

This is how it was viewed.

Person A: Judas hanged himself and stayed hanging for decay to set in and chemical pressure to set in

Person B (Luke) : Now talks about the aftermath of the hanging. Judas obviously began to decompose and this decomposition caused his skin to split due to internal pressure and his bowels to spill out as decay became advanced.

Still does not change the fact that Judas died / committed suicide.

To bad you can't see the B.S you just wrote...

You just twisted everything like every other pastor

MuttleyLaff:
Oh yes, they can

Absolutely not! or it'll be wrong for them to say that (if you're being pedantic with "can"

Whose money bought it?
Whose nau? Who is the owner of the money that bought it?
Is the money the priests', or is it Judas'?

Its the priests' as soon as they asked him what he wanted them to do with the money and he said they can do whatever they want with it

Even if you disagree with that, it still doesn't solve it as it simply means Judas didn't buy the land and killed himself on it or he had another 30Pcs of silver he used to purchase the land. Either way its either the chief priests used the 30Pcs to buy the land OR Judas used the 30Pcs to buy the Land!!!

Its you who doesnt at all, understand each correct answers given you
Read the coming below on what's the meaning of the phrase "Bought the farm"
Dont weep but please try to learn after from reading it

What's the meaning of the phrase 'Bought the farm'?

The New York Times Magazine, March 1954, had a related phrase, in a glossary of jet pilots' slang:
"Bought a plot, had a fatal crash."

That clearly refers to a burial plot.
The 'bought' in that case probably doesn't suggest any actual or potential purchase, but to an earlier use of 'bought', that is, being killed.
This dates back to at least the early 20th century.

This example from 1943 isn't the earliest, but it does make the meaning explicit.
It's from Cyril Ward-Jackson's It's a piece of cake; or, R.A.F. slang made easy:
"He's bought it, he is dead - that is, he has paid with his life."

Specific references to 'the farm' come a little later.
There are reports of the phrase being in use in the US military from 1955 onward.
Here's a citation from 1963, in Ed Miller's Exile to the Stars:
"The police dispatcher says a plane just bought the farm."

There are a few suggested derivations for the phrase.
One, put forward in a 1955 edition of American Speech,
is the idea that when a jet crashes on a farm the farmer may sue the government for compensation.
That would generate a large enough amount of money to pay off the farm's mortgage.
Hence, the pilot paid for the farm with his life.

Another suggestion is the idea that, if a serviceman was killed in action,
his family would receive a payout from the insurance that service personnel were issued with.
This would be sufficient to pay off the family mortgage.
Culled from https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/72850.html

I don't see how this is pertinent to this discussion, maybe I'll read it again when I'm less busy and get what its saying but it seems to be pedantry on first read

Lastly, a scenario:
Man, before going to work to earn money to pay for everything needed in the house,
gave some money to missus to buy groceries for the family.
Missus, gives part of money to one of her sons, asking him, to go buy a pint of milk for her from the shops
Son, skips to shop and returns back with a carton of milk
Depending on your perspective, Man, missus and son, each and all bought the milk, you do accept. Right?

All 3 bought the milk

1. The man gave instructions on what type of things they should use the money for while Judas doesn't give a sheet about the money as all he's interested in is getting the money off his hands

2. The woman took the money and instructed her son to go buy the milk, this still tallies with the instructions from the man

3. The son bought the milk from the grocer but the man is still responsible for it too as long as whatever the money was used for aligns with the Man's instructions which was absent in Judas case

your point is?

LordVoldermort:

Snakes eat flesh!!! Don't lie....Well Yahweh is the father of all liars so I don't really blame you

Christians tell lies more than Yahweh. Yahweh is a learner when it comes to twisting the lies in the bible. Give that to the Christians. I'm glad the time has come when Nigerian Christians are becoming apologetics because of questions raised by Nigerian non- Christians. Gone are the days when people don't ask questions or criticise holy books. Now we're having apologetics and observers because people are asking questions that can confuse Yahweh himself.