shadeyinka:

But I wasn't totally disagreeing with you. I didn't just take your position which to me is too leftist.

shadeyinka:
Its not as bad as you have put it.
The old testament is Jewish scripture. It will take a miracle for christians and jews to edit the old testament. Not every book in the Rabbis library are regarded as scripture such as the Maccabees but are valuable historical sources.

budaatum:


I do recognise that you are not totally disagreeing with me. You should in fact notice that you and I have evolved past that point of not seeing the other person's position and just disagreeing as a matter of course just recently, and are now prepared to at least consider each others position, for which I give thanks and praises and the glory to the Lord God Almighty.

budaatum:

A lot of editing did go on in the Christenisation of the Tanakh into the Septuagint. Cultural differences alone would have caused some of this along with various other reasons, but the Tanakh itself had gone through codification long before then with unacceptable books not being included, which is editing. And I would think if books found unacceptable could have been edited out, it sure would be very easy to edit out disapproved verses.

I believe that you will be amazed at what you will discover if you researched into this. Look for comparisons between the Tanakh (instead of just the first five books which is what the Torah is) and the Old Testament.

budaatum:

The following are a few suggested places to begin, but dig deeper much please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint?wprov=sfla1
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible?wprov=sfla1

shadeyinka:
Except you want to make the admission that the Christians ADOPTED the Editing done by the Jews in the practice of Judaism.

budaatum:


Not all! And it has definitely been corrupted since it is in no way in its original form it started out as.

The Torah is the result of a long process of editing (or redaction, as it is called by scholars). This means that there is no one date that one can be pointed to as the date of composition. Most scholars think that the final major redactions took place after 539 BCE when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
https://member.ancient.eu/Torah/

The books of the Christian Bible were arranged in the sequence one finds them in today to tell the story of the creation of the world by a supreme deity, the fall of man from paradise, and humanity's redemption by the Son of God but these books were not written in that sequence nor would the original authors of the Old Testament works have had that particular story in mind.
https://member.ancient.eu/bible/

..the Hebrew Bible did not begin as a single book; rather, it developed over time through the compilation of many Judean texts. The texts, though, were not always understood as divinely inspired, authoritative, holy texts; the role of Judean texts in religious expression developed between the 6th century BCE and 1st century CE.
https://member.ancient.eu/article/1139/early-judaism/

budaatum:

As I said, and as you'd find by following the links and asking and knocking and seeking so you see and know for yourself.

budaatum:
1. Not all! And it has definitely been corrupted since it is in no way in its original form it started out as.

2. The Torah is the result of a long process of editing (or redaction, as it is called by scholars). This means that there is no one date that one can be pointed to as the date of composition. Most scholars think that the final major redactions took place after 539 BCE when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
https://member.ancient.eu/Torah/

3. The books of the Christian Bible were arranged in the sequence one finds them in today to tell the story of the creation of the world by a supreme deity, the fall of man from paradise, and humanity's redemption by the Son of God but these books were not written in that sequence nor would the original authors of the Old Testament works have had that particular story in mind.
https://member.ancient.eu/bible/

4..the Hebrew Bible did not begin as a single book; rather, it developed over time through the compilation of many Judean texts. The texts, though, were not always understood as divinely inspired, authoritative, holy texts; the role of Judean texts in religious expression developed between the 6th century BCE and 1st century CE.
https://member.ancient.eu/article/1139/early-judaism/

budaatum:

You'd find there are subtle changes even in translations that are enough to make a difference. A prominent historical one was the result of the Protestant uprising, which was due to differences in translations, the significances of which are lost to us modern readers.

shadeyinka:

I've heard the argument of the bible being changed and edited from the original that I had to take an independent study. What I realized was that the proponent of this theory seem confused about who they are really accusing.
Is it the Tanakh that has suffered the change or the Bible?

shadeyinka:
Forgive me for being too religious BUT Jesus used this same Tanakh and quoted from some of them without raising the question of editing and change. Then who am I to insist that the scriptures we used have been doctored away from the original when my Master Jesus didn't raise such objection!?

shadeyinka:
I will take such objection to the changes in the Torah seriously if it can be shown that changes occured after the death of Christ.

shadeyinka:

This is why as Christians we must sometimes consult Interlinear Hebrew and Greek Translation of the bible.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

budaatum:

It is not about accusing anyone, Shadeyinka, but first finding out if the editing and changing had at all occurred, and only then can we go looking for a culprit who done it if at all it was done.

Fact is, The Bible is significantly different to the Tanakh, and the Bibles we read today differ to the Septuagint. The later we know from the persecution of Martin Luther, and the former can be easily found through research.

budaatum:

Forgive you for believing the Gospels we read were not all written after Paul's letters, and not that anyone actually recorded what Christ said or did during his lifetime?

Trust me Shadeyinka when I say I have no choice but to forgive you for not knowing all this since it is not what you have been made to believe, though I will not easily forgive you for not asking and knocking and seeking with all your heart and soul and mind and being so you may know the truth instead of merely believing what you believe. Good thing however is that buda is not God, so buda's forgiveness is irrelevant. But do remember that we already did discuss how beliefs make some refuse to learn and claim the living died.

budaatum:

You will live long enough to be empowered to ask and knock and seek for yourself in Jesus Most Mighty Name.
As in, [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+8%3A3&version=NIV]we must not live by bread alone or we shall become malnourished[/url]?

Do know that I buda 110% agree with you most completely.

shadeyinka:

Forgive me for not knowing!?
I guess you mean: forgiveness for knowing that which differs from what you Buda knows.

shadeyinka:

I judge all things through the lens of the logos.

shadeyinka:
I know that spiritual communications is not only from God but from Self, from Demons and from the World. Spiritual communications are many times presented as parables, I need to be able to discern to filter off noises and deceptions from God's words.

The only way is through the scriptures!

shadeyinka:
2Cor 11:14:
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

Not every light is "The Light"!

budaatum:


I judge all things by what I witness and the power developed by using my mind to comprehend.

budaatum:

So, only through Scripture , and not a burning bush, nor as a pillar of cloud by day, and as a pillar of fire by night; or as a "whisper" to Elijah and in visions to other prophets, nor to King Solomon in a "dream", promising to grant what he asked; and I guess Jacob wrestled not with the Face of God all night at Peniel, nor through Jesus Christ himself nor the Holy Spirit sent to guide us? And when I accuse you of book worship, thou doth protest so much.

budaatum:

Scripture, along with all the things before your eyes that have been created by the Word, and most especially one's neighbours and the world that one sees before oneself, and not by the bread alone!

budaatum:

By their fruits, Shade. The fruits that the lights produce. The criteria for wheat and chaff. That's how to distinguish light from The Light.

budaatum:


That is precisely what I should have said, do please forgive me. Though I must wonder if it is about what we know as individuals or what is knowable if we ask and knock and seek with our God given senses.

You and I have to someday return to the differences between 'knowing' and 'believing', or 'knowledge' and 'belief', as there is still much work to be done there.

shadeyinka:

I think you have treated in our discussions the subject of knowing/knowledge as absolute (i.e. once you know, your knowledge is perfect)

budaatum:
No one is claiming knowledge is absolute! If it was, the earth would still have been created in 6 days in 4004BC! And a superseeded theory is not the same as knowledge or relative knowledge that you claim is between a two year old and a maths professor! A superseeded theory is not knowledge anymore, the clue being in the word superseeded, as in, it has been discovered to be ignorance which we wrongly thought or believed was knowledge.

Consider Plato's Cave. We may claim the ignorance of those in the cave is relative to their lack of knowledge or their knowledge is relative to the cave they are in. But we would not say their ignorance, or knowledge, is relative to the total knowledge that can possibly be had, and compared to the knowledge that can be had, we would say those in the cave are ignorant.

Consider also the parable of the blind men and an elephant. It is the flipside of claiming to have absolute knowledge, as in, having incomplete knowledge, which is not 'relative knowledge', but plain ignorance.

You are seeing knowledge as some subjective thing where incomplete knowledge of 2+2 can equal 3, but knowledge is not subjective like that, which is why you'd fail an exam if you give 3 as the answer to 2+2. And if you use such subjective knowledge to build a house it will be as one built on sand.

Shade. This is the fourth or fifth time we would tackle this. I put it to you that if knowledge is relative, then Allah is God, Yahweh is God, Ogun is God, Sango is God, Shadeyinka is God, and the stone on the floor outside my door is God, since we can always find people whom those statements are all relative to. Do you agree?

budaatum:


I have treated nothing of the sort in the manner you have fashioned for yourself here, that "once you know your knowledge is perfect", and I am in fact troubled that you can misrepresent me so, though surprised not since you have shown a tendency for seeing the living as dead and black as white. But see as you make stuff up to believe instead of accepting what you see with your own eyes! Know that I see it.

I have in fact forever maintained the exact opposite, that once you believe you know you will stop learning. That, after all, is why I insist one must continue to eat the fruits of knowledge instead of fearing more knowledge kills. Even Christ said [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A33&version=KJV]continue learning[/url]!



One must consider refraining from continously bearing false witness to oneself because it can not be wise to so do.

budaatum:


No one is claiming knowledge is absolute! If it was, the earth would still have been created in 6 days in 4004BC! And a superseeded theory is not the same as knowledge or relative knowledge that you claim is between a two year old and a maths professor! A superseeded theory is not knowledge anymore, the clue being in the word superseeded, as in, it has been discovered to be ignorance which we wrongly thought or believed was knowledge.

Consider Plato's Cave. We may claim the ignorance of those in the cave is relative to their lack of knowledge or their knowledge is relative to the cave they are in. But we would not say their ignorance, or knowledge, is relative to the total knowledge that can possibly be had, and compared to the knowledge that can be had, we would say those in the cave are ignorant.

Consider also the parable of the blind men and an elephant. It is the flipside of claiming to have absolute knowledge, as in, having incomplete knowledge, which is not 'relative knowledge', but plain ignorance.

You are seeing knowledge as some subjective thing where incomplete knowledge of 2+2 can equal 3, but knowledge is not subjective like that, which is why you'd fail an exam if you give 3 as the answer to 2+2. And if you use such subjective knowledge to build a house it will be as one built on sand.

Shade. This is the fourth or fifth time we would tackle this. I put it to you that if knowledge is relative, then Allah is God, Yahweh is God, Ogun is God, Sango is God, Shadeyinka is God, and the stone on the floor outside my door is God, since we can always find people whom those statements are all relative to. Do you agree?

shadeyinka:

There is no problem with using our God given mind to reason. A complete human being should ALSO use his soundness of reason to comprehend, judge and discern both physical and non physical information before him

But because our understanding can sometimes be faulty, it is NOT the final umpire of right or wrong
Prov 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.

shadeyinka:

Thanks for clearing that impression about knowledge.
If there are things we agree about with respect to knowledge are:
1. Knowledge/Knowing isn't absolute wrt humans
2. Knowledge/Knowing is not perfect
3. Knowledge is to be continually sought after till we leave this world
4. Knowledge make a person wise.
5. Knowledge is a sum of information and experience we have

If these above are all correct about knowledge, there is a question that need be asked.
1. Can a knowledge/knowing be wrong?

budaatum:


All well and good if you are starting out in life, but rather impractical after many years of seek and ask and knock with one's own heart and soul and mind and being sharpened by God.

At some point, the Kingdom of God must stop coming at you from a book because the Kingdom of God is from within making your path straight.

How else can you possibly be perfect like your Father in Heaven if you do not let the Knowledge of God build your mind?

budaatum:


Yes, "a knowledge/knowing and knower, I dare add, can be very wrong". We see this replete in history. At one point a dome was over the earth until it wasn't. At some point the sun and stars revolved around the supreme earth until humans knew their place. There are still some who think they can fall off the edge of earth, and many who pray for manna from heaven or think trump won the last election. Some even wrongly think eating fruits of knowledge would kill them even though Adam and Eve lived. There's all sorts out there, Shade, as we can clearly obviously see.

Most, if not all the above, are "wrong knowings", or at least would be considered to be wrong by most sane sense using humans. I myself can be wrong numerous times during the day. An example is that I'm sitting in the living room wondering if I shut the fridge, which I of course did, I say to myself to avoid getting off my ass to go check.

But I now have gotten off my ass and gone to check and can assure you as a knower who has the correct knowing that the fridge was indeed closed which I indeed knew because I always double check the fridge is closed when I shut the fridge because I know I must always check the fridge is shut when I close the fridge because I have found I have in the past known I closed the fridge that I have found to be open, as in unclosed.

Its like an OCD for knowledge, except its for understanding. Imagine some spirit thingy leaving my fridge open.

shadeyinka:

Knowledge and Knowing is BOTH information and experience.
The Logos is information,
The Relationship brings experience

Neither the Logos nor the Experience can be done away with.

shadeyinka:


So, the next question:
Is a Belief always devoid of Knowledge/Knowing?

budaatum:

An expressed or believed belief can be devoid of knowledge or based on knowledge.

I can believe I have a million pounds in my bank account whether I have a million pounds or not, but I'm certain to meet some resistance when I try to buy a real spanking brand new red ferrari with the million pounds I believe I have. And so I'd call up my bank for my credit, and the bank would tell me how much I have in my account with them so I stop believing what I now know. And when I stand in front of the Ferrari salesperson, I can say what I know with the authority that the bank will back me up or not as would actually be the case.

Fact is, the believer knows if they have checked or are just stating what it is that they believe, and if it is what they believe, they should know they ought to ask and knock and seek to know instead of mere believing and lying that it is based on some knowledge they deep down know they lack.

budaatum:


The Logos is information, to those who must believe, but to those who seek understanding, the Logos is quite a lot more.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logos/v-1

shadeyinka:

Hmn!
The question has assumed that some believed beliefs are based on weak speculations devoid of facts such as a statement like "twins bring bad luck to the community" or "whistling at night attract ghosts to the whistler".

The question was:

Is a Belief always devoid of Knowledge/Knowing?

budaatum:

Any belief negatively affects knowledge, and a believe in what you do not understand, even moreso.

The issue is that you think both what you believe, and knowledge, are the same thing, which they are not. Just think. You can not believe your mother is your mother if you know who your mother is nor can you believe you have money in your bank account if you know there is money in your bank account.

I'm certain you are tempted to respond in the negative to the above but I recommend you think about it for a day or two to avoid responding how you have been programmed to believe.

You do not believe what you know, and if you believe then you really do not know.

shadeyinka:

The Logos without any bias is just a historical information (it doesn't matter if one believes it or not).

budaatum:


It matters immensely however if understood.

budaatum:


Since "some believed beliefs are based on weak speculations devoid of facts such as a statement like "twins bring bad luck to the community" or "whistling at night attract ghosts to the whistler"", as you have stated, it must go to reason that some beliefs are devoid of knowledge/knowing, and can actually be the opposite of knowledge which is ignorance, which a fitting description for those who ignore knowledge.

As to your "always", etiquette in my field insist that believing means you do not really know. We do not believe we will profit or succeed in my field. We ask and knock and seek instead so we may know.

shadeyinka:

You are being evasive to the question which in its simplest form, the answer is a YES or NO answer

Is a Belief always devoid of Knowledge/Knowing?

budaatum:


No, shade. A belief, though often devoid of knowledge/knowing, is not always devoid of Knowledge/Knowing.

Very very often though, you believe because you haven't bothered to ask and knock and seek and eat of the fruit of knowledge to find out for yourself.

Hence, science. The use of the heart and the soul and the mind and the being, to ask and knock and seek and research so one may actually know, more, so to speak..

shadeyinka:

Okay:
Even though some believed beliefs are devoid of Knowledge/knowing, some believed beliefs are guided by Knowledge/knowing.

Examples of such:
1. An army general planned an assault on hill 732 against Taliban forces dug in a defensive position. a. Does he know the outcome of his assault or believe in the outcome?

shadeyinka:
2. The Nigeria Olympic 400m relay track and field coach has trained his athletes for the Tokyo games.
a. Does he know the outcome of his coaching or believe in the outcome?

shadeyinka:
3. A student prepared very hard for his JAMB exam.
a. Does he know the whether he will lead the exam or believe he would lead in the exam?

budaatum:

He neither knows nor believes in the outcome! He simple does what he can and hopes for a favourable outcome.


Same here. He neither knows nor believes in the outcome. He simple does what he can and hopes for a favourable outcome.


Same here. He neither knows nor believes in the outcome. He simple does what he can and hopes for a favourable outcome.

In none of the cases above does what is believed affect the outcome apart from the motivational effect it might have on the participant. I have assumed none of them have special powers like the ability to time travel.

An example is two boxer about to fight each other. Do they know whether they will lose or win the fight or believe they will lose or win the fight?

Tadej Podgacar of UAE Emirates Team did not know nor believe he would win a stage, and that is why he and his team trained really hard and won the Tour.

Do see here you asking similar questions, and note my response has not changed.

shadeyinka:

Your response is full of bigotry.

budaatum:


Then let it be so, shadeyinka, if that is what you wish to convince yourself to be true. Do however know that I do not partake of your belief.

budaatum:


No, shade. A belief, though often devoid of knowledge/knowing, is not always devoid of Knowledge/Knowing.
Very very often though, you believe because you haven't bothered to ask and knock and seek and eat of the fruit of knowledge to find out for yourself.
Hence, science. The use of the heart and the soul and the mind and the being, to ask and knock and seek and research so one may actually know, more, so to speak..

Aketi2:
People generally believe that the name of the Islamic god is "Allah". Arabian Christians even use the term to describe the God of the Christians. But this is wrong, as I am going to show in this short thesis.

H0: The name of the Islamic god is Allah
H1: The name of the Islamic god is not Allah

Proof:

I will start my argument by stating unequivocally that the name of the Islamic god is ILLAH and not Allah. As we know, ALLAH is a contraction of two words AL and ILLAH. Typically, the Arabs will tell us that "AL" means "the". However, what they will not tell us is that "AL" also means god/goddess. "AL" has its root in the Aramaic word "EL", which means God. It is this latter usage that makes more sense when AL-ILLAH is contracted to ALLAH. With this, AL-LAH will transliterate to mean "god-LAH". This is true when one considers the names of the three most important deities in the Kaaba namely; AL-LAT, AL-UZZAT and AL-MANAT. Notice the prefix "AL" before their names. If we adopt the latter meaning of the word "AL"; the goddess AL-MANAT will then"goddess MANAT"; AL-UZZAT, "goddess UZZAT". More over if we apply the meaning of AL as "the", it will not make sense to render the names of these goddesses as "The MANAT", The UZZAT" etc. If it is not possible to do this with AL-LAT, AL-UZZAT and AL-MANAT, Why should we treat AL-ILAH any differently?

Notice the following words:
La ilaha Illallah wahdahu (There is none worthy of worship except Allah alone)
La ilaha illallahu la sharikalahu (There is none worthy of worship except Allah with no partner or associate)
La illah illallah, lahul mulku wa lahul hamdu (There is none worthy of worship except Allah, all dominion is His and all praise is to Him)
La illaha illallah, la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah (There is none worthy of worship and there is no power and no strength except with Allah)

"Allah" only appears in the English interpretation, while Illah is used in the Arabic. I think this proves my hypothesis that the name of the Arabic god is Illah and not Allah.

Let me hear your argument for or against this my hypothesis.