₦airaland Forum

huxley:
Far from that charge. I am interested in uncovering the truth of reality by questioning all going worldviews that claim to possess such truth, in the hope of separating the sheep from the goat.

difficult to do that when you already have a pre-conceived notion of what is sheep and what is goat.

huxley:
From that statement as given, you cannot draw a link from that phrase to the existence of pre-Adamite humans. You seem to have made an adhoc connection.

You havent undertaken a detailed study of the bible to come to that conclusion.

huxley:
You it be right to postulate that photographic imaging technology was in existence in Adam's time, based on the above phrase?

how is this relevant to the question?

huxley:
If there existed pre-Adamite "man", would they have been called "men".

why do you assume they wouldnt have been called men?

huxley:
BTW, what purpose is served by having pre-Adamite men?

what purpose is served by having Adamite men?

oziomatv:
She's having her horneymoon in london,

Really? Who's the lucky guy?

Serena Williams schools Ashley Harkleroad 6-2, 6-1

huxley:
How does this support the view the Adam&Eve were not the first human?

Read my earlier post, i put a semi-detailed analysis of why i think Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
You seem to be more interested in posing silly questions that actually looking for answers.

huxley:
Who was god speaking with? Was it with some pre-humans (on earth or in heaven). If so, did these pre-human have the same likeness as us?

How did god's conversation come to be recorded in the bible?

Ques 1 - There are angels in heaven. God is not alone there.

Ques 2 - Moses was a prophet who had an intimate relationship with God.

oziomatv:
D-R
wishing you a happy wed luck.

is she getting married?

Syrup, i dont agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

Jeremiah 4: 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

- This sounds eeriely like Genesis 1:2 so clearly the author was giving us a tiny insight into what actually happened that was not explained in Genesis.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

Moya already beaten in 5 sets by a qualifier.

this thread has ended predictably - the Jenny and Rampant show.  

D-reloaded:
4Him, why would He refuse? Wasnt the main point of His time on Earth to die for our sins out of compassion?

Lying is Lying, true although as we can see we have some people don't equate bearing false witness to lying.Anyway some people including myself have nop problem lying if it helps the lives of others. If it means burning, so be it but I have a feeling God would forgive us anyway

If you repented then sure God will forgive you but there is no excuse for lying under any circumstance.

Christ could have refused . . . Peter and John could have either lied or obeyed the command of the High Priest to keep quiet and save their lives, Paul suffered lashes, shipwrecks, jail time and yet refused to shut up about the truth of the gospel, Abraham refused to hide Isaac under his pillow, Jepthah did not lie about his daughter . . .

how can we have any excuse with these great cloud of witnesses?

I will not lie to protect anyone's life. If i perish for it, my last prayer will be that Christ accepts my soul in heaven.

Easy does it Syrup

D-reloaded:
If we are to believe that we'd be punished for lying to save someone else's life(or regards to the victimized Jews, thousands of lives) then I would disagree with God being compassionate and merciful as most of us have been taught.

Lying is lying even if its done to save your life. Why didnt the disciples lie to protect Christ at the garden of Gethsemane?

Read the testimony of Peter and John:

Acts 4: 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

God is compassionate and merciful . . . if He could give His own precious life on the cross for mere mortals like us when He could so easily have refused to how much more when we are called upon to make sacrifices that dont even involve laying our lives on the line for our belief.

The ancient apostles thought nothing of losing their lives for the truth, our generation is so comfortable that we are ready to accuse God of being unmerciful should He ask of us the simplest of sacrifices.

huxley:
Would you rather your host gives you up by being truthful? What if the refugee was your beloved son? Would your position change?

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his beloved son . . .
Jepthah made a solemn vow and fulfilled it even when it took the life of his daughter . . .

Sometimes christianity involves sacrifices that the human mind cannot fathom.

Matthew 10: 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

huxley:
On the Nazi question, I think the morally correct thing to do is to tell a lie to save the refugees lives. I think the ideal you take, while commendable in other situations would be reprehensible in this one. Imagine, you were one of the refugees. What would you rather the good German did?

The "morally correct thing" at the garden of gethsemane would have been for the disciples to have vigorously denied that Jesus was present in their midst . . . they did no such thing.

Look at the 3 hebrew friends of Daniel, the "morally correct thing" would have been for them to have bowed down to the gods of Nebuchadnezar and avoided the burning fiery furnace . . .

Biblical principles may not seem reasonable to the rational mind.

I see Huxley's questions are still unanswered . . .

The Nazi question - The bible is clear, thou shalt not lie even in the face of death. Stephen could so easily have chickened out and not died a painful death at the hands of his stoners.
If i were the German i'd have told the truth, if its God's will that the jews be spared He is powerful enough to do so if not . . .

- The other question as regards illegal immigrants . . . they can go to church all they want, they are still sinners merely assuaging their guilty consciences with church activity.
The bible is clear that we are to be subject to those in authority over us, that includes obeying the immigration laws of the country you reside. To remain in the country on false grounds is already a violation of biblical principle.

olabowale:
@Davidylan:Thank God, because my head would have been clogged with so much confusion. On one hand he is just a man, and then on the other hand he is god, son of  and or partner of. What a confusion. You see why I am grateful to God?

This has been explained so many times that its begining to get clear that yours is not a case of confusion but hardening of heart.

olabowale:
Please show me a place that I said Barnabas was a prophet? Or anywhere I said that between Jesus and Mu.hammad, there ever existed any prophet.

Forgotten the "gospel of barnabas" thread?  

olabowale:
At least Aramaic is a sematic language. Greek is not! I wo ogbe ni yi, gbe aago e. I am calling you in 5 minutes.

Hypocrisy seems to be ur watchword.
- Did you forget that Spanish and Italian were not semitic languages when you were arguing about the fraudulent gospel of barnabas?  

- Greek wasnt a semitic language BUT there is no doubt that due to the influence of the grecian empire many jews could speak greek.
English, French are not indigenous African languages but we speak them dont we?

olabowale:
Would an Igbo man have to learn Oyinbo to speak English? Has any Igbo man learnt English? Has there ever been an Ibgo man who learnt Arabic and have the mastery of the language? All of these have a yes as complete answer to each. Now whats your gripe? Abeg go lern arabic, jo!

Al'lah claims to be the "lord of the worlds", let him speak to us in our language afterall he claims to have created them all.

olabowale:
@Syrup:
I must have declared may times on this board that i went to a christian shool. Raised by a mother who was a Chritian. Roomed with a christian Reverend in school. Married a Christian woman. With all of these, do you think I would not at a time had a chance to actually studied the bible? Remember WASC? I took Bible Knowledge!

all these proves is that you must not have paid a shred of attention to the bible while growing up.

olabowale:
And do you read Hebrew or Aramaic? I don't care about Greek, since none of the prophets in the Bible was greek.

Barnabas (whom you decietfully claim as your prophet) was born in Cyprus and understood the greek language. Dr. Luke (who wrote the gospel of Luke) was greek, Timothy (a faithful follower of Paul) was greek.

Aramaic, like Greek, was not a jewish language. If you dont care about greek then neither shld you care for aramaic.

olabowale:
Your argument is in the same pattern as the young woman in England. Well, soon enough the truth will be revealed. But there is not M.uslim who recites Qur.'a.n in any other language except in Arabic. This is Q.u.r.'an.

Would an igbo man have to learn arabic to read the qu'ran?

jennykadry:
this 4him you're not even romantic sef

Time no longer waits for anyone, be pragmatic . . . if a girl says no there are so many others to choose from who end up even way better. No point pining away for a chic who you discover wasnt even worth all those wasted moments in the first place.

If she accepts then romance can start not before.

just tell her you like her and want to date her. if she accepts bingo, if she doesnt move on.

Djokovic is struggling to Dennis Gremelmyer at the moment, it will be a huge upset if he goes out in round 1.

dont look too hard.

syrup:
Okay. But here is the problem - the unbelieving partner who loves other woman than his own wife does not want a divorce! Infact, he seriously refuses a divorce! Worse than that, he is always screaming out 1 Corinthians 7:13 - "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."

Does the leeway still apply?

I strongly believe it still applies. I think we need to be careful to decipher what was Paul's personal opinion and what is actually scripture.
Remember Paul talks about it being better we did not even marry at all!

If your spouse is an unbeliever and you have valid reasons to separate from her after trying ur best to save the marriage then i think you can leave, you wont be bound to her.
Its if the spouse is a believer that complicates issues.

If your husband is a drunk and irresponsible father who can put you in harms way, u're better off leaving him even if he be pleased to dwell with you (since he can always use you as his faithful doormat).

maybe they shld just go back under apartheid.

syrup:
@4Him,

Hmm, that's a food for thought.

Rather than duck that one, let me share something small. In theory we may say we shall remain (depending on the situation); but in practice, many people might opt for the door out!

Another thought crosses my mind: what if the unbeliever seeks to remain in the marriage but believes in a worldview that he can jump from bed to bed without qualms. Ladies, what shall you do?

_{I know I am a lady as well. . . but I'm scratching my head now. Please help!}

that is already adultery. thankfully the bible has given a leeway out of such marriages.

onyinye seriously means business.

what kind of country is this?

Juanita Bynum isnt a great example to use.

leirop:
thanks a lot dear, but if u read the 1 Corinthians 10-13, it explains that if the wife does NOT BELIEVE AND SHE IS WILLING TO LIVE WITH HIM, LET HIM NOT DIVORCE HER, and the next verse explains the same for the husband that does not delieve. What it did not say was that the believer should walk away, it said if the unbeliever wants to walk away. The only part of the bible that specifically talks about the believer walking away is if there is adultery, and that is why i asked my question. Please let me know your thoughts.

Not everything is written in black and white in the bible, you shld be able to let the Holy spirit guide you to taking the right decision.
Even though the bible doesnt say the believing party can leave a marriage, i believe strongly that also applies. What if the unbelieving party were a member of a secret cult? Would you sit there because the bible didnt give you express permission to leave?