₦airaland Forum

I say name your price na

Passion is what I would say gives a turbo boost. Religion does ignite passion in many people. . . through the ages it probably is true that more havoc has been wrought by religiously inspired passion, than good.

Terribly high amount of havoc, infact.

Pastor AIO:
Some would disagree, but I won't mention Deepsight's name otherwise he will accuse me of picking on him!

LOL! Actually, i don't disagree. Your communication style is easy to follow, I have no problems with that. I just wish you wouldn't shut down and then explode in fits and starts.

Supposition:

Pastor AIO:
My question is, What is it about religion that causes man to excel himself in this way?

Rebuttal:

vescucci:
My point is this: coincidence or not, it doesn't prove anything because evil is also resultant of religion.

Supposition:

Pastor AIO:
Yes he says he is Jewish. And yes, that fact has a bearing on what texts exactly it is that he calls the bible.

Rebuttal:

It is the simple fact that even if he was referring to the Torah only, he is still elucidating a principle. That principle is that scholastic criticism of the identity of scriptural authors is inessential. . . . That principle is what I have stated to be a wrong principle:. . . . .[size=20pt]And this remains true whether the scripture referred to in the OP was even from the Holy Quoran or the Bhagavad Gita![/size]

Chai, YOU NO DEY HEAR?

Lol, you dey mind me sef?

Is it not interesting that a man preaching agaisnt self-importance and self-glorification in knowledge should consistenly set out his own quotes against his name. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ok, let us not derail this thread. The thread is titled "it doesn't matter who wrote the bible"

AND NOT -

"It doesnt matter who [s]inspired muhammad to utter the names of godesses and then retract his statement[/s] wrote the quoran"

Are you interested in discussing issues with Islam? Shall I open up a thread for you and I to banter? Cos am feeling playful today. By the way, You may have noted I have not been really serious . . . just pulling your legs.

. . . but we also know your prophet quite well, dont we? Liittle girls like Aisha, etc. . .

Sweetnecta:
Salman Rushdie is the Quran?

DON'T BE SILLY.

His book ressurected an ancient controversy regarding the words of your prophet - - -

See - - -

There are numerous accounts reporting the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account.[1] The different versions of the story are all tracable to one single narrator Muhammad b. Ka'b, who was two generations removed from biographer Ibn Ishaq. In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm,[2] considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20:

Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá
and Manāt, the third, the other?
These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.

Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans. Discerning the meaning of "gharāniq" is difficult as it is an hapax legomenon. Commentators wrote that it meant the cranes. The Arabic word does generally mean a "crane" - appearing in the singular as ghirnīq, ghurnūq, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has cousin forms in other words for birds, including "raven, crow" and "eagle".[3]

The subtext to the event is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the sūrah. The Muslim refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur'an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,

Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise.

Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans resumed. Verses [Qur'an 53:21] were given, in which the goddesses are belittled. The passage in question, from 53:19, reads:

Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other?
Are yours the males and His the females?
That indeed were an unfair division!
They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.

^^^

OK, read this -

The Satanic Verses is Salman Rushdie's fourth novel, first published in 1988 and inspired in part by the life of Muhammad. The title refers to the so-called "satanic verses", a group of alleged Qur'anic verses that allow intercessory prayers to be made to three Pagan Meccan goddesses: Allāt, Uzza, and Manāt.[1] The part of the story that deals with the "satanic verses" was based on accounts from historians al-Waqidi and al-Tabari.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses


Then read Inesqor's link again.

The matter na old matter, and dem don write one gbalakalada book wey touch on the matter, wey wan cause jihad, abi na lie?

^^^ Sweetnecta, dem don assist you. Abeg read am, you hia? No post again.

Lol @ worshipping Pastor AIO. Obviously you have not even been reading this thread.

Please I beg you in the name of God, stop posting on Nairaland. I am willing to pay you for that. How much will you accept to stop posting on Nairaland. I am willing to pay any amount. Please this is a serious proposition.

Sweetnecta, please stop posting on Nairaland. I find your username and your posts irritating. Don't be offended. Just stop posting. Thank you for your graciousness.

[size=2pt]Good grief, you dont even know of the SATANIC Verses the book by Salman Rushdie. [/size]

InesQor:
*rolls eyes* @ Deep Sight

Lol! so wetin be ya own 2 kobo on de matter wey we dey hammer this efenin on top our obodo nairaland?

OLAADEGBU:
This is the Word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah, saying:

"How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us?  Lo, certainly in vain made he it: the pen of the scribes is in vain.  The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD: and what wisdom is in them?" -- Jeremiah 8:8-9 (The Evidence Bible).

Who were the priests and scribes mentioned in these verses:

Commentary on Jeremiah 8:9

"The priests and scribes, the "wise men" of ancient Judah, had "rejected the word of the LORD," and so had forsaken the very foundation of true wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).  The same was true in Paul’s day, who noted that God had "made foolish the wisdom of this world" (I Corinthians 1:20).  It is more true than ever today, when practically the entire intellectual world—even in the religious world—has "rejected the word of the LORD" in favor of some brand of evolutionism".

Another respectable commentary:

The Jews prided themselves on being the wisest nation on earth because they had the law, but from God's standpoint this was all vain; and multiplying copies by the pen of the scribe was also vain if they would not obey it or profit by it.

There was a certain class of men called scribes that devoted themselves to the study of and transmission of the law of Moses, and proves that the law was in existence then as an authoritative guide. . . The first mention of one was in the days of David (2 Samuel 8:17; 20:25).

What do scribes do?

Before the printing press, how was scipture transcribed and distributed?

Are you aware that that very process was a source of further interpolations?

InesQor:
I see you (and NL) haven't changed much

^^^ "What? Wilt thou lift up Olympus? ? ? ?" - (Julius Caesar, moments before he was stabbed on the steps of the Roman Senate.

Hey! Where you been at? How bodi na?

InesQor:
Na so the thread take dabaru.

Lol, I actually think it quite interesting . . . would have been nicer though if we had more direct points than shadow boxing and personal innuendo . . .

Other Translations of Jeremiah 8:8

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Jeremiah-8-8/

How doe ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with vs? Loe, certainly, in vaine made he it, the pen of the scribes is in vaine.
- King James Version (1611)

``How can you say, `We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.
- American Standard Version (1901)

How is it that you say, We are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? But see, the false pen of the scribes has made it false.
- Basic English Bible

How is it that you say, We are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? But see, the false pen of the scribes has made it false.
- Darby Bible

How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
- Douay Rheims Bible

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
- Webster's Bible

How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely.
- World English Bible

How do ye say, We [are] wise, And the law of Jehovah [is] with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.
- Youngs Literal Bible

How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes.

- Jewish Publication Society Bible

View Wesley's Notes for Jeremiah 8:8

8:8 How - These things considered where is your wisdom? He speaks to the whole body of the people. The Lord - This may have a more special eye to the priests. In vain - For any use they made of it; neither need it ever have been copied out by the scribe. A scribe was a teacher, one well versed in the scripture, or esteemed to be so.

Jeremiah 8:8

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

This still remains the singular post on this thread that from within the bible itslef, deals absolute justice to the principle enunciated in the OP.

Deep Sight:
John Calvin might not have burnt Michael Servetus at the stake, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

Read the story here.

Would the reality of doubtful authourship not have made a difference to the intolerant and fanatical attitudes that led to the horrific death of hundreds like Michael Servetus?

We should not sit comfortably in the 21st century with all the Freedom of Religion and Conscience that we now have, and be unmindful of the deep havoc that has been wreaked in the past on account of these things. That would be selfish of us indeed.

And to specifically contextualize this -

Pastor AIO:
Let's imagine a scenario. We are told and it is confirmed that there are 6 honest men living in Lagos City. Would I be justified to then make the following statement? 'Lagosians are honest men!!'

Please can you draw your ineluctably conclusion on to the last statement.

Now consider what Olaadegbu said:
There are passages of divine inspiration in the bible will you therefore ineluctably conclude that the bible in it's entirety is a divinely inspired work? Please consider the 6 honest men in Lagos before you answer this question.

Having addressed this analogy of yours in my post above, let me also add that I am certain that you will not compare the ratio of claims of divine inspiration within the totality of biblical texts, to the ratio represented by 6 men within a Lagos of 15 Million people. I do appreciate the overall point, but I still think it is important to note this ratio thing: because there is indeed a difference when there is a preponderance.

For you would not have deployed the Lagos example if it was 14.9 million honest men, obviously. In the same way, if there is an overwhelming preponderance of claims of divine unction within biblical texts, then. . .

I hope that is not a lost point.

Now whatever book the article was discussing the fact remains that it's argument is based on the scholarship of the 5 books of Moses. The point argued was that it is impossible to dissect the text to find the original source materials. I do not see anything that you've written to address this. Then one last point that the writer makes is that it matter less ( or it doesn't matter at all) who wrote the book but rather the power of the book is what matters

Indeed this is correct. And it is exactly because the book possesses such POWER that the ideas within it can be dangerous.

What we need to appreciate is that at the end of the day oh, the OP is trying to tell us that the authourship is irrelevant in light of the faith reposed in the contents.

In one line - what I am trying to say is that the authorship is important when the book is riddled with claims of divine unction, and when the book has therefore served as a source of rigid fanaticism, which may not be the case if the instances of doubtful authorship were known.

John Calvin might not have burnt Michael Servetus at the stake, for example.

Thank you for your response Pastor. It is vaguely less condescending. Big ups!

Pastor AIO:
I don't understand what you are saying above. Is there anything in the though development that would exercise or annoy me? This doesn't make sense, in any language. Are you asking why I am annoyed? I'll admit that I can be belligerent and it is not something that I am proud of. However things have a cause. How do I explain this?

No I am not asking why you are annoyed. You will see that I had already drawn my conclusion as to the reason for that. I am rather saying that you should have no reason to be annoyed. Not over a debate. Not over any amount of debates.

The Chinese have a saying: If you hear that a son slapped his father, or that a servant killed his master, you will not find the reason for it within the morning and the evening of that same day.

Meaning that the cause of things are not necessarily to be found in the immediate environment. In other words some things that are so bizarre are often found to have been a long time coming.

In that case I should be belligerent and insultive to a great many people on NL who have over time appeared empty headed to me, no?

There is no justification for this especially if the source remains debate and not insults: no matter how fiercely you may disagree on debated points. Hell' that's why this is an open forum.

But let us leave that for another day. Right now to talk about what is going on in this thread and why your absolute lack of logic infuriates me. I've known you to be one for whom the end seems to justify the means, any means whatsoever. So you are not above twisting logic and making illogical leaps. Not only here but elsewhere too. But lets stick to here.

The same could be said for you, bro. It is more fair to simply say that you do not share a point of view, simple. I needn’t and will not, cite damning instances of your catastrophic flip-flops on logic. Not to speak of out-and-out scandalous contradictions.

Let's imagine a scenario. We are told and it is confirmed that there are 6 honest men living in Lagos City. Would I be justified to then make the following statement? 'Lagosians are honest men!!'

Please can you draw your ineluctably conclusion on to the last statement.

Now consider what Olaadegbu said:
There are passages of divine inspiration in the bible will you therefore ineluctably conclude that the bible in it's entirety is a divinely inspired work? Please consider the 6 honest men in Lagos before you answer this question.

If you are still at the same conclusion then I'll give up. I'll accept that we just think very different.
Sorry to explode with insults, but finding little logic in your responses I was at a loss as to how to respond logically.

It needn’t have taken you this much emotion to respond with the simple point you have made above – namely that the presence of some claims or instances of Divine Inspiration does not render the whole book divinely inspired. That would have been far easier to state: and far more easily received and digested than the circuitous, emotional route that you have adopted. This is what I would caution against. If the debate frustrates you, then try being like thehomer: short crisp responses that hammer the point away in simple terms without any angst.

In simple response to that which you have laid out I will say that the preponderance of claims of divine inspiration within the bible (or specifically, within the books that make up the bible: urrgh) are so ubiquitous and so much underlie the messages delivered that it is more than credible to make a case that, it is a book majority of whose constituent parts claim divine inspiration or: in at least: a book that claims divine unction for the vast majority of its parts.

If I were to be thehomer, I might simply use your Lagos analogy and say that if Lagos comprised 15 million people, and 14.9 million of them are inspired, it would be fair to state that, wow, that’s a city with a hell of a lot of inspired men.

So there: wow: the bible’s a book with a hell of a lot of claims of divine inspiration within it! That you cannot deny!

Now whatever book the article was discussing the fact remains that its argument is based on the scholarship of the 5 books of Moses. The point argued was that it is impossible to dissect the text to find the original source materials. I do not see anything that you've written to address this.
Then one last point that the writer makes is that it matter less (or it doesn't matter at all) who wrote the book but rather the power of the book is what matters. I've spent the last few days thinking about why this should be such a sticking point with you and Olaadegbu. I think I've discovered why.

You make such heavy weather and yet it seems that you do not stop to read or digest. Either that, or you are on a misguided high horse heading to a wring township altogether.

DID YOU NOT SEE WHEN I WROTE THIS –

Deep Sight:
Now, the more important and searing point which it shocks me that you have missed in all of this is not even the foregoing. It is the simple fact that even if he was referring to the Torah only, he is still elucidating a principle, and that same principle is the reason the OP opened this thread. That principle is that scholastic criticism of the identity of scriptural authours is inessential. That principle may be applied, and indeed both the author and the OP do apply it, to the bible. That principle is what I have stated to be a wrong principle: and I have adduced my reasons for saying so.

. . . And this remains true whether the scripture referred to in the OP was even from the Holy Quoran or the Bhagavad Gita!

It seems to be that you did not consider the foregoing. Because it renders your discourse on "5 books of moses" "Jewish Bible" - - - ALL REDUNDANT!

The problem lies with what the bible is to you. To you the Bible is an historical text dealing with historical facts told by an authority in the history.

Please don’t make assumptions. That is not what it is to me. It is a book with a powerful effect on people and that makes it all the more important that that effect is does not work towards creating strife by the interpolation of illegitimate dogma.

Has it occurred to you that there would be more religious tolerance in the world and less religious wars in the absence of such books as these (Bible, Quoran, etc) - - - books which are seen as infallible authorities. . . . ? Or either that, then in the absence of the ideas of the "gods" that they propagated. . .witness the OT carnage. . .

To me it is something else. It is a key to open up dimensions of the spirit. It is a source of inspiration.

Jolly well and good. While it opens up dimensions of your spirit, do spare a thought for those who have been tortured to death on account of illegitimately interpolated dogma therein.

This is one of the reasons why I have stated that it does indeed matter who wrote it, but I am certain you have been paying me little attention. For I asked these questions –

Deep Sight:
1. Would it matter to you if some of the text were controversial interpolations which led to the violent death of hundreds by stirring up dogmatic controversy?

2. Do you think there would be the same level of fanatical adherence if peoples through the ages perceived that the text was not authoured by those so claimed. Do you think there would be the same level of intolerance and absolute conviction in the divine origin of the text.

----- which it seems you are yet to reflect upon.

If I am listening to some good music and I am jollificating along with it, it doesn't matter to me who wrote the song, or who the performers are. Yet there are other people who will straight away grab up the album sleeves and read all the credits. They they will go out and buy a book on the artist and learn all the information about him. Then they will become an expert in that artist. Ask them any question. They will tell you which day the song was recorded, what the original lyrics were that were subsequently changed so that the song could be more commercial, who the producer was, and why the drummer on the album was ill that day and couldn't make the session so they had to get another drummer.
Yet upon all this I can still bet that their enjoyment of the song is not any better or deeper than mine. It is the same with the bible. The inspiration I extract from the bible is not dependent on who wrote it and when and who editted what where and when.

All very well and good again. Maybe you are a higher spirit who will never be influenced by inessentials.

But, if so high a spirit, sir, then you should spare a thought for those lower mortals who have suffered torture and death on account of irascible disagreements on deliberately and illegitimately interpolated dogma.

Dance on inspired, but spare a thought for such souls.

For them, it did matter, no?

It really boggles my mind that you now fail to distinguish between the different books of the bible and Insist that Paul was talking about the entire bible which didn't even exist in it's entirety at that point. It frustrates me to have to thrash out these points line by line which is why I resort to insults sometimes. Surely you can now see the idiocy of what you were saying.

I never said or wrote such a thing. Ask Mr Olaadegbu concerning that, if you care.

plus I read somewhere above that Paul was referring to the gospel of Luke, I can't find where you said it, or was it Ola that said it. Ol boy, I know fit shout. All of Paul's letters were written before any of the gospels were written. Paul's letters are the earliest christian documents.

I never said or wrote such a thing. Ask Mr Olaadegbu concerning that, if you care.

wole123:
This voice is an appeal to everyone in Oyo state- the indigenes & non indigenes. We have experienced what progress this state has seen in the last fifteen years, so, we have seen and know what has been happening. Oyo state was crippled, blinded and dumbed. Alas! The joy is, she has taken her 1st step, balancing those movements but we expect her to run. She can see, though not so clear and speak not too well .
Hey, there is progress. All our desires and expectations for Oyo state will take time, prayers and a good leader. No worries, we will get there in a short while. Remember where we are coming from. Now, we don't want to spend time on who did not do what nor who will do what, but who has done, is doing, and will do more. Let us not allow tribal sentiments take over our sense of reasoning. We may not like Alao Alala's face, but how about his loads of love, compassion for his fellow humans and fear of God? Is this not what we are looking for in a leader? Are we going to ignore this alarming virtue? We need this virtue as the vehicle to move us forward. We need your support to bring him back to finish what God has favoured him to do. We need your vote! Do not fight the grace and mercy upon Alao-Akala's life, but join this train of support by sending this to all your contact in Oyo state and devote 2mins in prayer for him and the state.
God bless you! Vote for PDP- OCAA. Let's allow him

The bolded in red - - - alarming virtue indeed!

Pastor AIO:
An ineluctable and glaringly obvious lot.

Hmmm. Nonetheless in your spare time, just as an excercise in self-improvement (we all need this) try and read through the thread and see if there is anything within the thought development that should excercise or annoy anybody. I particularly recommend this to yourself, Enigma and the OP.

You will note regarding yourself, that - you had been the one to raise the tangent to the discussion by insisting that the article was 'specifically" about the 5 books of Moses and also insisting that the bible does not claim divine inspiration. We pointed out to you that we felt the contrary. Rather than a logical rebuttal, you explode with insults.

I hope you can see that this is simply not a way to address debated points. I know you have said you take that back, but I need to restate it because as you are aware, this is not the first time that simple debated points have resulted in a lory-load of unsolicited insults from you. I simply hope it is not becoming a pattern. The other day, arguing my view that Olodumaare is analogous to Allah, Yahweh and Brahman as essentially conceived, was enough to elicit wanton and vulgar expletive insults from you. It is simply needless.

Overall, the honest impression you guys give me when you react like this is simply that logic and reasoning frustrates you and gets you guys very very angry indeed. Thus when a logical premise is set out, rather than rebutt it logically, it is rebutted with insults and sarcastic remarks about one's personality. That simply does no good.

Now the reason I say this is the following: note carefully - - - >

Deep Sight:
Is it not true that the scripture that Paul was referring to, is today part of the Bible? ? ? ? ?

And -

Deep Sight:
The bolded - -

Interesting facts for Pastor AIO to reflect on! Perhaps he will state that these are not claims of divine unction since the books had not been collated and it wasn't called "the bible" at that time.

- - - which doubtless did not sit well with you. Perhaps you felt you had been misreprsented? But then you responded AGAIN to Olaadegbu saying -

Pastor AIO:
Sorry but the bible did not exist when that letter of Peter was written.

- - - Which is just lamentable. The scriptures that the apostles were referring to were of course in existence at that time - and much of those scriptures are part of the OT today. Indeed almost everywhere where the apostles say "it is written" - - - just pick up a concordance and you will find the quote in the OT that they are referring to. How you can allude that "the bible did not exist at that time" and therefore conclude that the reference to scripture did not cover scripture currently within the bible, is simply beyond me. You threw a challenge that we should refer you to claims of divine unction: we did so - and you refute them essentially on the ground that the collection called the bible had not been put together? Come on. That collection is made up of many writings that severally claimed divine unction - and which are in the bible today.

And then you get angry that this is pointed out.

Take am easy sha. I know you retracted your annoyance so pardon me that I still felt it necessary to set these things out plainly.

No qualms. But if that is your only response to the several points raised, that really says alot.

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible doesn't attempt to defend its inspiration. But here is an interesting thing: Genesis opens with the words, "God said," 9 times in the first chapter. The statement, "Thus says the Lord," appears 23 times in the last Old Testament book, Malachi. So you have, "God says," from Genesis to Malachi. "The Lord spoke," appears 560 times in the first 5 books of the Bible and at least [size=16pt]3,800[/size] times in the whole of the Old Testament! [size=16pt]Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message came directly from the Lord; Ezekiel, 60 times; and Jeremiah, 100 times.[/size]

The bolded - -

Interesting facts for Pastor AIO to reflect on! Perhaps he will state that these are not claims of divine unction since the books had not been collated and it wasn't called "the bible" at that time.

Sometimes one just has to shake one's head at this "capability."

Pastor AIO:
I'm sure that Pastor Olaadegbu is well aware that when the letter to timothy was written there was not such thing as the bible at that time.

Is it not true that the scripture that Paul was referring to, is today part of the Bible? ? ? ? ? Let us not be pedantic please.

Not to speak about the fact that writers of both the OT and NT repeatedly claimed divine unction. Paul even going so far as to be bothered to make a distinction when he was not speaking FROM the Lord's unction ("not the Lord but I") - what about the countless prophets who came declaring "This is the word of the Lord" within their specific adjurations to the People - which today form part of the Bible. What about the visions of St. John the Divine, recorded as the book of Revelation? ? ? The very gospels themselves are accounts of words and deeds of a man (Jesus) who they state came from God and whose actions were of divine moment. There is abundant claim of divine unction within the various texts and we need't be so pedantic as to say that simply because the bible was not collated in its present form, then no claims were made in that regard.

As to the rest of your post, good and understood, but - please, if you can, answer me these:

1. Would it matter to you if some of the text were controversial interpolations which led to the violent death of hundreds by stirring up dogmatic controversy?

2. Do you think there would be the same level of fanatical adherence if peoples through the ages perceived that the text was not authoured by those so claimed. Do you think there would be the same level of intolerance and absolute conviction in the divine origin of the text.

^^^ That's deep. . . you are not a Jehovah's witness (they dont celebrate Easter or Christmas) - - - you cannot be a JW because you believe in the Trinity, they do not. Might I ask your denomination. . . or persuasion?

Hi there Aleth! Still enjoying the Tintin collection you gave me. Do you have a link for Asterix?
Happy Easter!

Pastor AIO:
Happy Easter everyone!!

Happy Astarte, Pastor.

Dear DeepSight, I do not see anywhere in the article where he applies his argument to the whole of the bible. If you can identify such a place then please quote it out for us to see. All he argues against is the scholarship involving the 5 books of Moses.

Ha. Pastor are you for real?

Okay let's break it down. What was the title of the article?  - "It doesn't matter who wrote the bible" . Is that not the very first pointer that you should reflect on? Why did he not simply say "it doesn't matter who wrote the Tanakh" or "It doesn't matter who wrote the Torah" ? ? ? ?

This is very clear indeed. Because the author makes it very clear that he is using the 5 books of Moses as an example to argue his point.

It is glaring THROUGHOUT his write up that he is making an argument concerning the whole bible: and explicitly so. He says –

With other fields, we usually don’t have our own dinosaur in the fight. But with the Bible, it’s not just the scholars duking it out with the clergy. There’s all the rest of us trying to figure out what to do with this stupendously important book — either because it anchors our faith, or because it contains enduring wisdom and the foundations of our cultural identity.

Note the highlighted above. Why did he not say “but with the Torah”? ? ?

Not just that reference. There was more – in the above quote he followed his mention of “the bible” with a question as to “what to do with this stupendously important book”. . .

So it is clear, explicit, and beyond argument that he was discussing the scholastic approach to the bible. In doing so, he used the example of the 5 books of Moses, given his Jewish background.

Again – in the last paragraph he talks yet again about the fact that this same book has inspired love, hate, war, etc. This further makes it clear he is referring to the bible. And he explicitly states “the bible” “biblical heroes” etc.

I don’t even believe I am being made to set out all this obvious stuff in such painful detail. It reminds me of what I had to do in every discussion with Viaro.

This is why Jesoul recognizes that he was applying his entire argument to the whole bible. Why the reference to bible scholars. Why did he not say scholars of the Torah, for example? PLEASE!

Now, the more important and searing point which it shocks me that you have missed in all of this is not even the foregoing. It is the simple fact that even if he was referring to the Torah only, he is still elucidating a principle, and that same principle is the reason the OP opened this thread. That principle is that scholastic criticism of the identity of scriptural authours is inessential. That principle may be applied, and indeed both the author and the OP do apply it, to the bible. That principle is what I have stated to be a wrong principle: and I have adduced my reasons for saying so.

Therefore it emerges that when you ask me what the argument I made on 1 Jn 5 v 7 had to do with the OP, you must now recognize that it had everything to do with the OP, because the principle set forth in the OP is one that is negated by that instance that I cited. And this remains true whether the scripture referred to in the OP was even from the Holy Quoran or the Bhagavad Gita!

It seems that your new gripe seems to be that the bible claims divine authorship.

It is not a “new” gripe. I stated so as early as my third post on this thread. I said –

“What I state to you is that the claim of divine inspiration will certainly be tainted if given by false authours. And also that this very defence could be applied to the false writings of virtually anybody - - - so long as there is faith. This is a dangerous way to think.”

Please you will have to show me where in the bible the bible claimed divine inspiration, apart from the books of the prophets (including revelation).
I am not aware of anywhere in the 5 books of Moses where a claim for divine inspiration was made, neither am I aware of it in the gospels or in the letters of the apostles.

I want to presume that this is an Easter day joke.

Just saw this from Mad Max on another thread. . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg5971929#msg5971929 date=1272553449]In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah. If he's Elijah that probably meant Elijah did something that compelled his return. Perhaps some work was unfinished. Perhaps a debt was unpaid. But from what I'd read Elijah sounded like someone outstanding. I read through his story again and guess what I found? He threw a challenge to the prophets of Baal. They lost. For reasons best known to himself, maybe as a sort of dramatic flourish to the events of the day, he took the FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY prophets of Baal and EXECUTED them. He killed four hundred and fifty people. If you're executing in those times, you behead. Sometimes these heads are hung at city gates. Did Elijah pay for this thing he had done? No.

But John the Baptist, whom Christ said was Elijah, had something interesting happen to him. Herod's niece danced and pleased him and he decided to grant her a boon. She asked for the head of John the baptist at her mother's behest. And John the Baptist was EXECUTED. He was BEHEADED. The whole thing was so casually done. Someone danced and off goes his head.Maybe his debt is paid. Maybe he has to come back and be executed four hundred and forty-nine more times. But there are inflexible laws in the universe. You reap what you sow.[/quote]If na me talk am, dem fit break my head.

NICE ONE, MAD MAX.

[eXITS WHISTLING. . .]

Nelbless -

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REGARDING THE ISSUE OF DREAMS I VERY HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THROUGH THIS BRILLIANT THREAD -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.0.html