₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=280507.msg3988178#msg3988178 date=1244323099]You dey listen to them. I have seen more kids that are biracial yet they look either white or black. If Barack Obama shave his hair gorimakpa, he will pass for 100% black because his fathers nwamkpi gene is stronger than his mom by a long shot, All these Afro Venezuelan and Hugo Chavez Africanism is nonsense because race is not determined by country or continent of origin. Hugo Chavez said his roots are from Africa, that doesn't mean they are black. Many Algerians emigrated to Spain in the middle century and they are Africans and Arabs. Ethiopians and Eritreans fall in another category. Even the negro races have differences, those from Sudan and the rest of East Africa have different features from those from western and central Africa. Michael Jackson's father is 1/4 native Indian.

Judging someones race from the hair can also be erroneous because people treat their hair all the time with whatever they want. Women perm, braid, bleach, jerry curl etc their hair and michael's kids are not exempted. Besides, his daughter's hair does not look white. Look at it again below.
https://a11news.com/images/paris-michael-jackson.jpg


The youngest child looks like him more tho
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01006/michael-jackson-46_1006512c.jpg[/quote]I completely agree with you. Some peoples definition of race is still very primitive, I guess it because of lack of exposure. The more you meet different mixed people, the more your views change. Mixture of people is unprdeictable it all depends on whoes genes are stronger. You cannot look at two people and predict what thier offspring will look like.

tpiah:
we're saying the same thing.

Why why do we consider Micheal Jackson more black than Marah carey's father. Micheal jackson is Afro-Amerian, while Marah carey's father is black mixed with afro venezualen.

They are both mixed pople. I am sure micheal has other races in him like all Afro-americans.

tpiah:
Mariah carey's dad is Afro-Venezuelan. That also doesnt mean her dad was fully black. He could be mixed.

Mariah carey's dad was black and Venezuelan. He was not Afro- Venezuelan like Venezuelan president. Her father was black mixed with Afro-Venezuelan, thus he has more black in him than the average Afro-Venezuelan. Hear from her own mouth:

"I'm not a White girl trying to sing Black," the 20-year-old singer says in an interview soon after. "My father is Black and Venezuelan, my mother is Irish. That makes me a combination of all those things. I am a human being, a person. What I am not is a White girl trying to sing Black."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n5_v46/ai_10405332/

Here are more pictures of the boy:

http://www.thinesclaude.com/ses-amis-ses-mariages.php

The boy is micheals. Micheal could not be stupid enough to tell such a lie in this world of DNA discoveries. Do you know how many times the pree goes through micheals trash can to find something for the news. I bet many people have secretley taken a strand of that boy's hair and taken it to a DNA clinic. If they have found him not to be micheals son, the DNA result will be on the cover of every news media in the world the next day.

After a carefull and more detailed look of that picture, I come to realise that that boy is not only mixed, he is indeed micheal jacksons son. He doesn't look that white. His nose is micheal jacksons nose before micheal started slicing off his nose. Search for a picture of micheal before his plastic surgeries, you will notice that that boy in the picture looks like him. The same shape of head and the same shape of face, and the almost the same nose.

It is hard to find a completely white person with nose like that boy's. Don't judge with white Americans, and British whites because they are usually mixed. Go to remote parts of Europe and see what a pure white man looks like.
That boy doesn't have a white man's nose. Period!

those kids could very well be micheal Jacksons kids. Nigerians are very ignorant and mixtures, I guess because we do not have a lot of it in our country.

There is no guaranty that a child of mixed parents should have both features. Look a Mariah Carie and tell me if you could ever have suspected that she is half black. Even two dark skinned Nigerians in igbo land could have alight skinned baby.

Remember that African Americans are mixed, so in reality micheal jackson is not 100% black. he could have a lot of white in him. Moreover I have seen an African American couple give birth to a child that was almost completely white, blues eyes, thin nose and etc. The husband was so disappointed, only to do a DNA test and found out that it was his kid.

Somebody once posted a picture of child in this forum, a black child with blue eyes.

If micheal wants a white kid he will adopt one. He doesn't need to fool anybody.

If you have had dogs of different breeds mix, you will see that there is no way you can tell what what the offspring will look like. One could be completely like the mother while the other is like the father, the next may posses both characteristics, while the next may posses none.

If you look at that boy carefully, you can tell that he has black in him.

Look at bob Marley and his mother, then tell me if bob posses any treats of his mother. Look at all bob Marley's children, look at his grand children, some of them look more white than black.

@poster
my dear I am just tyring to offer my opinions. I don't know if you are getting upset. If so, please I apologise; if so please disregard my posts.

I have read your post and I am not saying that you are a liar but some of the things just doesn't add up.

First I live in the US too and I have witnessed many legal proceedings and involving marriages. I am not a lawyer but I know that:

1) In America, the law does not punish somebody based on the crimes of his/her spouse. In this case your are no longer married to him, but even if you are, there is no way you can pay for his crimes.

2) Only in debts incurred during marriage are both parties responsible. If he incurred depths during the time you are married to him, then you may be responsible for the payment after the divorce. However, this debt is usually split between you two. If he makes more than you, or if you are not working, you can easily be absolved of the responsibility, especially if you prove that you are not aware of such debts.

3) Any debt incurred over seven years, should no longer be counted as your record. This should already have been removed from your record. If it is still there then you can easily file a petition for them to be removed, you don't need your ex-husbands help in this. Even people who filled for bankruptcy over seven years ago no longer have any record of it in their record.

3) In America, the law does not regard married couple as one. Everybody his answerable before the law for his crimes. If you husband was married to another person during the time he was married to you, this is a crime that he committed, and there is no way you will be demanded by the law to pay for it. The best you can do is report it to the law as soon as you found out. Actually you are the victim, you can even sue him and get compensated.
If this is actually true, then this is a good way for you to get out of the debts. If you can prove that he was already married before he married you then you marriage can be nullified and you may get absolved from any debt incurred during the illegal marriage. But in this you don't need to contact him. Since you are the victim, you can get a lawyer to represent you.

4)Most lawyers in serious cases get get another lawyer to represent them. The fact that you are lawyer doesn't mean that you have to represent your self. In a case like this, you are the victim, in-order to convince the judge that your ex-husband is a liar, you should show the steps that you took to avoid him. Most lawyers would file a restraining order, and get a lawyer to represent them. This will show the judge that you are traumatized by the experience and doesn't want anything to do with him any more. If he was a liar and you don't want to deal with him again how come you still call him? He can make a case against you for stalking. Did he tell you that it was okay for you to call him? The fact that you were married to him doesn't give you the right to pick up the phone and call him anytime. His wife could sue you for disturbing her family, and harassment. If you are truly a lawyer then you are approaching this issue like a novice.

5) I have checked my records many times. Even if you check your marriage record using both the bride's and the bride groom's name, you will only see that date that you two got married and where. That's all. You wont see everything about him or his whole histroy. You will see your history but not your ex-spouse's history. In order to find out everything about him, you will have to have his Name, Date of birth, and Social security number. You need these information because there may be more that a thousand people with the same first name, middle initail, and last name. So how are sure it is the man. Also, if you are using an agency like "Intelius" for these searches, keep in mind that there record may not be complete. It is possible that the man was divorced but the search agency was not able to find this record. I know for sure that it is easier to find a marriage record but not that easy to find a divorce record.

Believe me, my dear leave this man alone. you may be opening a can of worms. Be Warned.

ayomifull:
According to her its not about the guy its about her having a straight record for future purpose.

@ poster if that makes u happy and satisfy u by all means do and clear yr name.

I know what she said, and I also know that women always find a legitimate excuse to go back digging on past relationships.

I know a woman who maintained connection what her ex-boyfriend's daughter. Her excuse was that she suspected that the man may be abusing his daughter.
By looking out supposedly for his daughter, the woman found herself dating the man who used to beat her again. A few months latter, they broke up with a big disaster. She nearly lost her vision due his beatings.

The Truth is that there is no way a marriage record can be bad on your record. At the time you were married to him without any knowledge of his bigamy. This cannot hurt you, as long as you were not the one who was married to two people.

If you actually only wanted to clear your record, why dont you just get a lawyer to handle the case? Why did you call the man? All you could have done was get a lawyer to represent you, your lawyer will call him if he needed to be contacted.

Once again, I advise you to let go for real. You shouldn't even have his number. stop calling him, and stop digging on his past. I know its hard to let go, I have been there, it is even more difficult for women. I have seen women return over and over again to an abusive relationship and each time they have a good reason to return. Some will say, "oh I am only checking on his mother who is my friend, or I called to speak with his sister, kids." One woman even said, "I called to invite him to the church so that he can give his soul to Christ. But the truth is that they call because the could not let go. This is hard to admit but it is the better Truth.

How come the next person's record that you checked after checking yours was your ex? Did you check your brother's, sister's, father? Why this man? Hmmm. Believe you still have some feelings for him. You might actualy be checking to see if he has married another woman after he left you.

Please leave this guy alone for your own good. I am talking from expereince, please learn from mine.

/

If you have taken an anthropology class you will understand that societies are classified as:

1) Family
2) Community
3) Tribe
4) Chieftains (ethnicity)
5) State or nation

Family is group of people related, mainly by blood, marriage, or adoption. The leader is usually the father or the mother depending on the custom. In this stage there is no written law or Constitution. The members conduct their behavior based on tradition and rules laid down by the head. Kinship also falls within this category. At this stage there is no president, King, or etc. The person with most authority is the head of the family. One becomes the head due to his age, or gender. This is a primitive stage of the society comparable to the Hunter-gatherer societies.

From the family stage, the society evolves to the community.

Community is made up of families. Groups of family who interact or socially, i.e. related, share customs, share beliefs and live near is a community. Villages, cities and towns, belong to this category. At this stage there are no legal laws. Communities conduct themselves by customs, tradition, and values which usually are backed by religious beliefs, mutual agreement, or superstitious beliefs. Here also there is no President, Government and etc.

The community evolves into a tribe.

The tribe is a group of communities or extended families held together by a shared system of traditions. At this stage there is no complicated and advanced legal system or government. Some tribes may have leaders who are called tribal leaders chiefs but usually tribes are lead by council of elders. According to wikwpedia:

tribe, is a social group of humans connected by a shared system of values and organized for mutual care, defense, and survival beyond that which could be attained by a lone individual or family. A 'tribe' is defined in anthropology. When viewed historically or developmentally, a tribe is a mutual care system which, unlike a kingdom or state or other schema, is oriented around kinship and shared beliefs. Tribes can well exist simultaneously with other schema (see Schema (psychology)) such as states or other systems.

[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

From Tribes we go to chieftaincy.

Chieftaincy or kingdom. Usually tribes evolve into this stage. These we have the first forms of complicated and laid down laws, Government and etc. Here the society has laws, legal system, government, well defined religious beliefs, and well defined modes of conduct. The society is not lacking in any walk of life-they have philosophers, musicians, teachers, priests, and etc. The society is headed by a King who has more or less power depending on traditions. Some kings have absolute power and are more or less dictators. Some societies at this stage have evolved into a democracy where the people chose the leader. But mostly societies at this stage are usually empire ruled by an emperor (a dictator) like the ancient Romans, Greeks, ancient Egyptians, ancient English and etc.

From this stage the society evolves into a civilized state or nation.

state or nation This is the modern nation or country. I don't need to waste time on this. We all know what a country or a nation is. This stage usually comprises of all the lower stages, IE in a nation you have families, communities, tribes, and chieftaincy. However some societies that have attained to this level (nations) are not recognized by the world as a nations countries or state. This could be due to colonization or political reasons. At this stage there is no primitive. Nigeria is supposed to be a country. There are so many countries in the world, i.e USA, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and South Africa, and etc.


Below is how wikipedia classifies the society:

1. Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.
2. Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige.
3. Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains.
4. Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

[quote]

After taking all these definitions into consideration you come to the understanding that Igbo, House and Yoruba, are not tribes. These are arguably nations, since they all posses the characteristics of what makes a nation. The colonial masters called them tribes in-order to hide the better truth. The Truth is that they (the colonial masters) invaded west African nations and controlled them. Rather than saying this they say that they colonized and united tribes into a nation. This is an insult on us because tribes are usually more or less a society at a primitive stage. This is one of the reasons why Nigeria is failing; we have to realize that Nigeria is a group of nations trying to amalgamate into one nation.

I once asked my anthropology professor(a white man) why the world calls us(the igbos) a tribe while nobody calls societies like the Irish of United Kingdom tribes.  The professor smiled at me and said in a quite tone, "racism."
Consider that the igbos are more numerous than the Irish. Mare population alone can move a society from the tribal stage to a nation. Once tribe is mentioned, primitivism comes to mind, the world would always like to associate black Africans with primitivism. This is what the colonial masters taught us, and today we still teach this in our schools. Some People who study abroad and people who know what a tribe really means will never consider the Igbos, housa, yourobas and etc, tribes. Listen to Professor Chinua Achebe on this issue.

@ poster
I feel your pain but the best thing for you to do is to move on with your life. Forget about this liar and stop being curiouse about people you are no-longer with. Curiosity killed the cat!
The more you probe him, the more you will find, and the more intrigued you will become until you decide to ask him about some issues. Then you will start talking with him again and get hooked on his lies until you find yourself in bed with him again. The relationship will start all over again until you get he breaks your hearth once again.

Detach any connection you have with the liar or else he will lie himself into your heart one more time.

@ spoilt
Where in los angeles are you?

I concor.

[size=16pt]ayinba 1, her false allah(the devil) and her prophets are noting[/size].

Stupid ass

This is the whole thread. Don't just paste parts of it.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-236417.0.html#msg3487325

Everybody was talking generally speaking. His first post was his opinion on Islam and Igbos generally. There was nothing personal about it. The first personal threat there was ayinba 1's reply.

Apart from that, as a moderator you should not keep silent when people a making death treats on the forum. Rather than addressing the serious issue of death threat, you deleted the thread I opened to discuss this serious issue.

Every body has freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. But nobody has the right to threathen another persons life. Death threats are a very serious crime. I can tell the anybody, even the president of America that he is a fool, but I cannot make threats of death on him, even on the internate.

The Truth is that there is nothing said that warrants death Treath. This is what she wrote:

you're not the first but not everyone lives to tell the story!

This is a threat. For some of us who have lost close family members in the north due to religous killings. By writing this that "not everyone lives to tell the story" she is reminding us our bothers and uncles that were killed in the north.

I wonder why these mooslims cant leave the bible alone. If you believe that the Koran is the word of God, why then do you still seek validation of your religion from the bible. The Truth is that even mooslims know that the Koran is nothing but a book of lies, written by barbaric arabic people.

todak:
Thank you cocoman, maybe they will get it straight from there, cos they are stubborn as their Father the D, , complete the remainder

thank you my brother. You know I used to be liberal, I never troubled muslims until that fool ayinba1 threatened seeklove with death just because he expressed his opinion.

These fools always want to shed blood when they loose an argument. I am not afraid of them. Eversince the I read the threats that ayinba1 made against seeklove, I have swarn to be their enemy. I wish they will declare fatawa on me.

I know very soon the muslim moderator will delete this thread or ban me but I will not be afraid to speak the truth. I opened a thread to address the death threat that ayinba1 made against seeklove but the muslim moderator deleted it.

I know who their father is.

Islam islie.

For those who will like to hear the Truth. Please read:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_opinions_on_who_wrote_the_Koran

http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran7.html

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-koran-errors-catholic-mariolatry-trinity-father-son-mary.htm

Very very very and very retarded.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=191998.msg3095585#msg3095585 date=1226863605]@cocoman4u,

To "encourage" someone to do something, does that equate to "commanding" that person to do that thing?[/quote]You still have not answered the question. The question is:
In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not?

I want a yes or no answer

@pilgrim 1
Yes it actually sound like a command, suggestion, or imperative when you say, "search the scriptures."

Since we are deviating from the real issue let me show how thi started. The guy that posted that verse tried to use it to suggest that Jesus encouraged us to search the scriptures. Here is what the guy posted:

Image123: Jesus encouraged His followers to use the Word (the scriptures).He is refered to as the Scriptures. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

This is justcool's reply:

justcool: Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations:


International Standard Version (©2008)
"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."

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."


GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"You study the Scriptures in detail because you think you have the source of eternal life in them. These Scriptures testify on my behalf. Yet, you don't want to come to me to get [eternal] life."


American Standard Version
"Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life."

Bible in Basic English
"You make search in the holy Writings, in the belief that through them you get eternal life; and it is those Writings which give witness about me. And still you have no desire to come to me so that you may have life."

Douay-Rheims Bible
"Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life."


The verse correctly said that people search the scriptures because they think that the scriptures contain eternal life. But the scriptures at best bear witness or points towards Jesus Who is the Truth. Therefore there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Eternal life only comes by living the words of Jesus. Therefore we should put Christ before everything, even before the scriptures. This is what the verse(John 5:39) is saying.

In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Besides in John 5:39, or in the time of Jesus, what was referred to as the "scriptures" was not the Bible we have today. What they had then was what the jews have today as the torah, parts of which is contained in the old testament.

And here is pilgrim 1's reply:

Pilgrim 1: In other words, people are not encouraged to search the Scriptures? You should be careful what you say, because interpretations matter - depending on what you either read out of a text, or otherwise read into the text.

By the question that pilgrim 1 asked above you can see that she was argueing in the favour of the notion that Jesus encouraged us to read the scriptures. But leter she changed her stance and capitalized on the command.

I think that Pastor AIO made it clear that by command is ment imparative.

Now let us return to the original question. Pilgrim 1 In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not? Just answer yes or no, and dont come up with the jargon or of wheather it is a command or not.

Pastor AIO:
I think the problem is lies in the fact that when justcool, myself and others have used the word command we meant it in the sense that the sentence was NOT supposed to be constructed as an imperative. While I can't speak for justcool, I know that I personally was not making a distinction between the two. I then noticed that you were making a distinction.

If I say - 'Sit Down'. That is the imperative of the verb 'To sit down'. I [/b]call it a command sentence. If however I notice that you insist that it is not a command because the person saying the imperative may only be recommending someone to sit down, or suggesting to someone to sit down, rather than commanding someone to sit down, then I am happy to change the way in which I use the word command just for you, [b]YET the fact remains that it was translated into english as an imperative when it should not have been. This is a mistranslation that has resulted in the OMISSION of the word YOU from the beginning of the text, thus allowing the text to be completely misunderstood.

@pastor
We all understand this. Remenber that som guy posted that verse along with other biblical verses in defence for reading the scriptures. His idea has that Christ actually recomemded reading the scriptures by John5:39. Then justcool gave many parralell translation and proved that in that verse Christ did not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life.  I believe that "command" used in this thread we all understand it to be that an imparactive, suggestion, or the affirmation that we should all read the scriptures. I beleive that we all understand the context on which command is used. Pilgrim 1 is only playing with words looking for a way out of the conner she put herself.
If I remember correctly, justcool said that the statement is a "reproach" I completely agree with him in that sense.
One thing with pilgrim is that when she is losing she will never admit it, she would rather acuse poeple and make up such subtle distingtions that even she herself does not understand, or she will capitalize on a word or an expression. The bone of contention here is not the word "Command" as she has smartly shifted the issue towards that. The bone of contention is this: Does John 5:39 recomend that we should depend on the scriptures or not?

I will give another example of how tricky pilgrim 1 is.
Justcool said:
"The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach."

From the above we see that justcol said that KJV ommited "you". (We all know that this is a fact, because we find "you" in other English translations.) Justcol also infered that This ommition makes the verse sound like a command instead of a reproach. By this he did not say that KJV intentionaly made it a command.

Now pilgrim 1 twisted it and acused justcoll of saying that KJV changed the verse into a command. Here is what pilgrim 1 said:

Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.

[quote][/quote]You see how she twists issues, lie and acuse people.  Show me where justcol made the acused allegations. Nobody ever said that KJV intentionaly changed it to a command. I beleive pilgrim 1 is trying to make justcol the scape goat and thereby divert us from her lies and allegations.

Bastage:
pilgrim.

Check cocoman4u's statement again.
He's saying that justcool did not allege. Justcool stated it as a fact. By saying that he alleged you are either being misleading or telling a lie as accused.
One doesn't need to allege when alluding to a fact.

Touche!!!

Thank you my brother. I couldn't have said it better.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=191998.msg3093638#msg3093638 date=1226792215]Bottomline: the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun at the beginning of that sentence, for the pronoun was not there in the first place; it did not change or distort its meaning; and it certainly did not make it sound like a "command". The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."

Shalom.[/quote]Lie! Lie! Lie!
What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV, The "you" was actually omitted in KJV, therefore it cannot be an allegation. He compared KJV with other English translations, and actually in KJV, the word "you" was actualy omitted(missing). Omitted simply means "left out," "not included" "disregarded". In KJV the word "you" which most English translations included was omitted. You can argue that the omittion was correct because the word "you" was not on the original Greek verse. But you cannot say the "you" was not omited in KJV when compared with other english translations. justcol was compareing KJV with other English translations not the original greek version.

Besides, anybody who know about languages and translations, knows that you do not translate sentences word by word. In order to convey the right meaning, when translating, words may be added or removed. This is done in-order to comply the operations of the language. I will give an example;

In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=191998.msg3082789#msg3082789 date=1226593365]@justcool,

These matters have been treated in other threads before - and there are more. Reharshing the same thing here is not helping the attitude you adopted in making false assumptions against the verse in the KJV you assumed earlier.[/quote]@pilgrim 1
What is wrong with you. Are possesed or what. Everybody in this thread is trying to be civil but you keep making false aligations against innocent people. You are the one who was caught red handed lying about john 39.

I have been following this thread and you are the person who is always making false claims and aligations.

You are a disgrace to christainity.

I don't usually post on the religion forum but this thread is very interesting. This thread is very intresting to me becuase I back in Nigeria, I used to have a pastors who preached that the bible is not the word of God. Everybody hated him for this. I once asked him personally what he meant, and he told me that the bible contains a lot of things, it contains some words of God and even some words of the devil. I was shocked and I asked him to show me and he queted Job 2 verse 4.

"Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life."

He also came with the issue of translations and complilation. I left him thinking that he was crazy and possesed.
But now living in America and watching the history chanel, and talking with christians here. It is obviouse that the bible was compiled by the early catholic bishops. Whoever denies this is either ignorant or crazy. It is a well known and documented facts that they removed alot of books. Knowlegeble Christians in America do not deny this. Rather they bass their fate on the Holy Spirit.
Closing ones eye to truth and upholding the bible to the level of God is blasphemy. Christ promised His folowers that He will send them the Spirit of Truth, not the bible. It is this spirit of Truth that will teach them everything! True Christians should be lead by the Spirit of Truth. You can also learn alot in the bible, if you can interpreate it rightly. But to hold that it is the undiluted word of God is a lie. It is only a compilation of many things.
Even a child can see that the bone of contenetion here, (john 39) actually reproaches poeple from serching for salvation in the scriptures. Please dont let inductrination blind you. We all recieved this inductrination in Nigeria where we a taught that the Bible is the word of God and should never be questioned.