₦airaland Forum

I hope you feel better soon. But if the enfabled "capability" of Pastor AIO results in the sort of myopia shown in the quotes i set out in my last post above: then I am afraid (as indeed i have become more conscious of late) that there is no capability of any mentionable significance there.

I mean, just imagine stating to me that the authour "was referring specifically to the Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh. And his arguments are addressed at the sub-categorization of the Tanakh to 4 sources, J, E, P and D."

Happy the OP could recognise that the argument made was beyond that: and that that was an example therein.

Oh my.

And you must all pardon me for a little pettiness. Sometimes I just shake my head when people dance around in circles over simple logic, and even get to the point of gloatingly patting each other on the back - all on account of a common paranoia about what is being discussed.

Look at this -

Pastor AIO:
Dear DeepSight, are you aware of the fact that the article that we are discussing was written by a Jew and that he was referring specifically to the Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh.  And his arguments are addressed at the sub-categorization of the Tanakh to 4 sources, J, E, P and D.  He discusses why he thinks that such scholarship is nothing but an exercise in futility.

- - - which tragically sought to infer that the article in the OP was directed at the Tanakh.

Then look at this -

JeSoul:
As an overall point - the author extends these shortcomings he sees with scholarship in regards to the first few books, to all of the bible. You are right - and this point is lost on one (and infact bolded all thru the OP).

- - - which correctly recoignises that the argument was not limited to the example from the Tanakh which was deployed.

Nuclearboy. . . .? ? ? ? ?

Sometimes one must really be worried.

nuclearboy:


Hehehe. Been here but down with a nasty fever so am real tired and preferred to just laugh. But in honor of my total love for you, Deep, I'll say I was pulling your boots.

So sorry dear friend. I hope you feel better already.

Still, the particular scripture is basis for the faith of many. Once you discredit the authorship/source, you are basically saying the entire package is not trustworthy.

Indeed; though we needn't be so holistic and expansionary in our interpretation.

Now that is what we see in your posts. Question is this - assume I told you Mr Atolagbe wrote the book of John and Enigma told someone else it was Professor Ridwan. Tell me DeepSight, how does that change the contents which are inspirational in nature?

I stated in my very second post that we should take to the message and not the messenger. So it is very clear that we are not ignorant of that. The specific point is that in this particular matter, we are speaking if a text that claims divine inspiration. We must be honest when we agree that that claim of divine inspiration has led many to die for scripture or be killed for it, because they trust it completely. Now let us ask ourselves sincerely: would that absolute trust be there if the adherents were properly informed about these cases of doubtful authourship within scripture?

And this is not to even speak of the cases of illegitimate insertions and interpolations of controversial dogma which led many to stake their lives and ended up being burnt, tortured and murdered. Do you really think anybody would stake his life if he knew the script he was dying for to be of doubtful authourship: ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE BASIC MESSAGE OF LOVE IS NOT WHAT WAS CONTROVERSIAL: BUT INSERTIONS OF DOGMA SUCH AS THE ONE I REFERRED ENIGMA TO? ? ?

For this reason, the argument within the OP remains dangerous and wrong when it infers that scholastic criticism of the IDENTITY of biblical authours is inessential.

nuclearboy:
Chei, DeepSight has suffered here.

Off-point, un-objective, biased, out of context, displaying dilly dally and silly something too.

And all because he fears the Jewish Carpenter might be true too

Come back here and recant. Show me what is off-point now!

JeSoul:
Again that is not what he says. Expressing doubts and pointing out shortcomings in scholarship does not amount to a complete dismissal of all scholarship as 'inessential'. Context DS. Context.

It is surprising that you could have read my post and still say this. You misquote me. That is not what I said or argued. I never said that the authour dismissed "all scholarship as inessential." Rather I said at least FOUR times within that one post that the authour was argiung that scholastic criticism of the IDENTITY of biblical authours is inessential.

That is indisputably what he argued.

If I had been the one to misquote you so badly, you go on and on about how dishonest and vile I am. And yet you cannot show me where I said such a thing as that the authour dismissed all scholarship as inessential. I spoke specificallyt about the topic - to wit - identities of authours.

And I disputed that with the points in my posts. Such identities are essential especially in light of these - I said -

Deep Sight:
1.   Scripture is tenaciously held on to because of its claim of Divine Inspiration. This is what makes people kill and die for scripture. If its authorship is false, that casts a HUGE pall of darkness of the claims of divine inspiration, and this would mean that the biggest bulwark of scripture: namely its claim to divine inspiration, is potentially dubious.

2.   This naturally means that hundreds of thousands of people have staked their lives and the lives of others on claims that they would have viewed differently, if they had a different idea as to the authorship.

3.   The same principle is extended to NT scripture. A clearly illegitimate insertion such as 1 Jn 5 v 7 has resulted in people being BURNT at the stake and hundred tortured and murdered for contesting its legitimacy. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF AUTHOURSHIP HAS COST LIVES: AND FOR THIS REASON THE PRINCIPLE BORNE OUT IN THE OP IS WRONG WHEN IT STATES THAT SUCH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH AS TO AUTHORSHIP IS INESSENTIAL.

And the foregoing remains indubitable.

The matter dey tire me o.

^^^ This is what is particularly sad. I want to ask you for just one second: cast away your preconceptions about me, and stop and ask yourself: what in the word did this thread have to do with Jesus Christ?

You see, if you will be searingly honest with yourself, you will see that it is you that has become rabidly paranoid and over-sensitive where you need not be.

Because the argument advanced within the OP was that scholastic criticism of the identity of biblical authours is inessential - and the argumenbt that I made against it was simply that such a position is wrong and dangerous. Dear Enigma, I implore you to serch yourself and see if there is anything anti-christian in such a very simple argument. INDEED there is nothing that should even excercise or annoy anybody therein - regardless of what side of the divide he stands on.

If you will reflect, you will see where you have been needlessly abusive over a purely academic matter that does not even invoke matters of doctrine.

I wish this was your first post

Have I been with thee so long and thou knowest me not?

Please you cannot claim that you did not know what I meant AND the position i described and canvassed in all my posts. It was clear. It is accusations that now force one to write what should have been a needless thesis to point out that which was already obvious.

HAPPY EASTER JESOUL.

voltron:
The Idea that GOD (as described by your average bible-literate christian) would consider prayer as a means of communication beats me you even gats the Holy Spirit in the mix to utter words that we cannot fathom but are a sure-fire way to speak to GOD with the most clarity/reception. I fear I am the only one who sees prayer as a soliloquy in reverence to a higher-power not a means of worship. I think when we reach a certain level of awakening in spirit and consciousness - Prayer becomes a receptacle to be used for sharing thoughts (not the traditional rites of worship). Think of prayer as a communication between skilled soccer players, everyone is on the same wave-length and are unified in purpose (will-fully). it is not necessarily the spoken word, but the simple acceptance of a truth. To say GOD at his level will expect honest murmurings of piety, especially as a petition or in adoration or contrition or thanksgiving smacks of in-suffice human wisdom. If GOD is what popular thought claims then telepathy (or something like that) is all that is needed. A being of such transcendent measure should not be bantering with his creation when in the old days he would simply thunder from the skies or sneak up behind you and chat.

Men, bros you deep o! Thnaks!

[quote author=Lord_Reed link=topic=652247.msg8183397#msg8183397 date=1303499173]Speech is an important element in the spiritverse. This is why it is written ". . . and God said. . ." even the witches and wizards have to voice out their spells and incantations.

It is also written "With the heart man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Praying in your heart/mind is essential as it focuses your spiritual energies but release via utterance is essential if you want to see effect.[/quote]What about a dumb person. CAN HE NOT release anything since he is dumb.

Is the thought in his mind and the volition in the spirit not the core thing?

nuclearboy:
I would expect just praise and definitely not prayer from you. Whats the point of prayer if indeed non-interventionist? Praise for women, flowers, beauty!

Which makes me wonder - are you sure what you believe or is there a nagging feeling that God is more personal than you would wish?

You are quite correct. I have expended alot of time wondering about this. Sometimes I really ponder on something said by easylogic a while back -

He said that "the very act of creation is a personal act".

To be sincere, that sounded potent to me. However I have often thought in contradiction of that, that creation may not really be an "act" per se. It may simply be an eternal and constant state of the expression of the divine mind in a never changing eternal instant.

We all, do have alot to learn. Sometimes however, it may be better to simply experience the womder of creation and the gift of life, than bother with the grave thought of "learning" anything.

For, what can we really know, my friend?

@ Pastor AIO and Jesoul –


It seems to me that you have missed the core purpose of the article. What is obvious is that the writer –


1. Takes a look at the pitfalls of scholastic analysis of scripture


2. Recognizes that scholarship has its limitations in terms of tracing (reverse engineering) an already edited text


3. Surmises that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is inessential.

It is thus apparent that the overall conclusion is that a scholastic identification of the writers of scripture is needless: scripture anyway being a potent factor in our existence.

This central idea is what I state to you is wrong.

It surprises me that Pastor AIO talks about the fact that the author is a Jew and that he is analyzing the authourship of the Torah. This is because the author states very clearly both in his title and in his conclusion that he is speaking of the Bible, and within his article he uses the 5 books of Moses as an example to elucidate his points which I have enumerated above.

The author says -

Maybe that’s all right. After all, isn’t it enough to know that the book is really important, that it has inspired love and hate and introspection and war for thousands of years, that it is full of interesting stories and wisdom, poetry and song, contradiction and fancy and an unparalleled belief in the importance of human endeavor - in the possibility of a better world - despite the enduring and tragic weaknesses that every biblical hero carries on his or her back? That it is an indelible part of who we are?

And as such it is clear that the overall point he seeks to make is that it is inessential to worry about authorship of the books of the Bible. If that was not the overall point, he needn’t have used that word in the first place. It is simply obvious that in proving his point he uses as example the 5 supposed books of Moses from his standpoint as a Jew.

[b]What is most critical is that the foregoing is not even important. What is important is the principle he is elucidating – namely as I said:  that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is inessential.

Further it is more than obvious that the OP was deploying that principle as a bulwark against criticism of authorship of scripture. The OP (Jesoul)  is a Christian, so please do not try to insinuate she has particular interest only in the Torah. The intention was clearly to show that ALL scholastic criticism of SCRIPTURE is inessential. That is obviously the point in the OP - that is why she has presented us with the article written by a Jew on his defence of teh same subject matter.

It therefore beats the imagination that Pastor reverts talking about the 5 books of Moses. That is such an unbelievably escapist and off-the-mark cop out that it leaves me dumbfounded. Obviously such stupendously off-target analysis is what is swallowed by a nuclearboy, who is apparently not diligent enough to contemplate the issue properly before responding.

I am not moved by these. I am moved by strict logic.[/b]

For this reason I have sought to state within this thread and I emphatically state again: SUCH A PRINCIPLE IS DANGEROUS. And in this I refer to the clear principle which the OP tries to convey: namely that scholastic criticism of scriptural authorship is inessential.

I have given reasons above as to why I regard such thinking as dangerous. Let me summarize some of them here –

1. Scripture is tenaciously held on to because of its claim of Divine Inspiration. This is what makes people kill and die for scripture. If its authorship is false, that casts a HUGE pall of darkness of the claims of divine inspiration, and this would mean that the biggest bulwark of scripture: namely its claim to divine inspiration, is potentially dubious.

2. This naturally means that hundreds of thousands of people have staked their lives and the lives of others on claims that they would have viewed differently, if they had a different idea as to the authorship.


3. The same principle is extended to NT scripture. A clearly illegitimate insertion such as 1 Jn 5 v 7 has resulted in people being BURNT at the stake and hundred tortured and murdered for contesting its legitimacy. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF AUTHOURSHIP HAS COST LIVES: AND FOR THIS REASON THE PRINCIPLE BORNE OUT IN THE OP IS WRONG WHEN IT STATES THAT SUCH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH AS TO AUTHORSHIP IS INESSENTIAL.

These are the issues friends.

We cannot read an article which argues an obvious and clear standpoint, and then bury our heads in the sand regarding the very dangerous effects that that very standpoint has delivered throughout History.

^^^ The problem with you is that you simply will not pause to think, reflect and analyse these matters. It is sufficient for you, a pretext or any defense: to cling to your faith. Please see my next post. You have not even remotely grasped anything on this thread. Sadly, nor has the OP.

What do you really what me to say? You know I dont agree that Atheism is a religion.

Excellent, thanks for repeating what I have said.

I am happy to go away and rest my case "for the objective reader" on your honest admission here -

Enigma:
4. Many manuscripts and usually older manuscript do not have the comma
5. There is thus some reason to sugget that the Comma was an addition to the autograph

These are more than sufficient admissions for me.

Do spare some thought for those killed on this account, and maybe then reflect on whether or not the writers matter.

Thank you and Happy Easter again.

Readers -

Please read the KJV version for yourselves here -

http://kjvbible.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi

And then read the NIV version for yourselves here -

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5&version=NIV

Virtually ALL modern versions go with the NIV, having expunged those extra trinitarian words in the KJV version.

WHY DID THEY EXPUNGE THOSE WORDS?

The words have been found to be missing from the earliest manuscripts available.

Now, for disputing those same words, hundreds have been tortured and murdered - - -

And yet we have the nerve to say - - "it doesn't matter who wrote those words" ? ? ? ?

That is insensitive to those who died because of those exact words written by somebody

Enigma:
^^^^And that is your proof? Your case is worse than I thought.

Enigma:
So where is the proof of "illegitimate insertion" even in the above?

It is rather unfortunate that your "intellectual" style of debating things appears to be to stare them in the face and declare that they simply do not exist. It is obvious to me that you will wine and dine on excuses about the Comma Johanneum and still wind up saying nothing about what is a clear interpolation. For this reason I will not seek to convince you, for you obviously already know the truth in your heart.

I will rather seek to convince the objective non-partisan reader and for the sake of such a reader I will repeat the verses here in full, and he can decide from himself if it is not obvious that simething has been interpolated.

The full text of the King James version –


1 John 5:6   This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:7   For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

  1 John 5:8   And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The full text of the New International Version –

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Readers, please check out the difference in the verse 7 of each version. There is a huge difference. Verse 7 of the KJV reads –

1 John 5:7   For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Whereas same verse in the NIV reads –

7 For there are three that testify:

So please, after you may have called me fraudulent and daft on Good Friday, I guess it is left to the reading public to decide who is being fraudulent here.

Unless the question can be answered: WHY HAVE MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE REMOVED THOSE EXTRA TRINITARIAN WORDS IN VERSE 7?

No answer to this question from Enigma. Only insults.

In all of this, just remember that the biggest point is that many people were tortured and murdered for disputing what later was proved to be a latter addition. Thus it will be callous of us to say. . . it does not matter who wrote these things. . . .

And so I ask again: where is our conscience? ? ?

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. First published in 1754, 27 years after his death, it claimed to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records",[1] and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture".[2] He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world[1] and accuses it of "pious frauds".[2] He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men. as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".[3]

In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Using the hand picked writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," in support of the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading".[4] He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript corrected from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes "the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."[6] Today most versions of the Bible omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading.

[1 Timothy 3:16The shorter portion of Newton's dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (in the King James Version):

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." instead of "He was manifest in the flesh." He demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.[7]

Summary of both passages
Newton concludes: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over."[8] It was only in the nineteenth century that Bible translations appeared 'correcting' these passages. Modern versions of the Bible usually omit the addition to 1 John 5:7, but some place it in a footnote, with a comment indicating that 'it is not found in the earliest manuscripts'.[9] Modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 now typically replace "God" with the correct "He".[10]

Historical background
Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. As late as 1698 the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness made it an offense to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office and employment on the first occasion, further legal ramifications on the second occasion, and imprisonment without hope for bail on the third occasion. Newton's friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.

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

Please people: note the gruesome end that met those who disputed these manipulations of scripture. People have died harrowing deaths for these corruptions of scripture and we are here comfortable enough to languidly declare that. . . .it does not matter. . . who wrote these things. . .

Where is our conscience?

Wow, such powerful insults from a goodly christian on Good Friday. I have not and I will not insult you sir. It surprises me however that the mere presentation of a contrary view is sufficient to elicit such insults from you. Honestly this is teh problem I have with you guys. You sit on your high "christian" "moral" horse but have no hesitation responding to the simple presentation of a contrary view with unnecessary insults. That is not very "christian" you know, nor is it mature. If you have a disagreement with teh view I have expressed, you may set out your rational basis for such disagreement without reverting to insults. That only gives the impression of frustration. As though you find my contrary views so annoying that you must give a knee jerk reaction by spewing insults. That is hardly an "intellectual" response.

As regards the tiresomely repeated line about "so many people" having distaste for me: I am certain that you can be honest with yourself in that I have not come accross as one who is courting anybody's favour. I don't give a hoot, sir!

You say I provided no proof regarding 1 John 5 v 7. The truth is that I did. Any body can pick up the KJV and read it today. And then immediately compare it with the same verse in ANY modern version of the bible. Those words have been deleted from modern versions. That is undeniable.

That is proof. Everything else is just escapism. Since you desire it, i will provide further reading on the subject for the sake of other readers.

Happy Easter, Enigma.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.32.html#msg6636954

This is also another link where Nwankwo x-rays the subject.

I think that there were quite alot of responses on that thread that addressed your comments, and more importantly, that which you cited in teh first place did not in any way dispose of the fact of the illegitimate insertion.

But any how.

If a man regards God as Transcendent and non-interventionist, need he pray?

My dilemma is that I do pray. My prayers are scarcely ever formal constructions. I regard little fleeting heaves of wonder and emotion, of passionate quest within my spirit, to be prayers. I also regard my wonder at the beauty of creation to be praise. Here and there I do quietly speak a few words to that entity that I regard to be the ultimate existent: God. My spirit cannot divorce this.

But really what is the place and relevance of prayer within the mindset of God as a transcendent and non-interventionist element. I wonder, and would like to hear from others genuinely.

coldwater:
@ Justcool, I was reading a discussion between you and deepsight on a thread. You mentioned about Jesus, Imanuel and Parsifal.

I know Jesus is not Imanuel, is not Parcifal. Is Imanuel, holyspirit the comforter? What about parsifal? Is he the author of ''In the Light of Truth'' the son of man? Please clarify the differences among them for me. Thanks

Hello Friend;

I think justcool and m_nwankwo have tried to explain that issue in detail here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-429591.0.html

In addittion I might specifically say that a particular aspect that is indeed worrisome is the undeniable fact that there were deliberate insertions within scripture with a view towards advancing specific dogmas - and some of these turned out to be controversial to the extent of leading to many violent deaths of people.

An eminent example is -

1 John 5:6

6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [NKJV: Holy Spirit]: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The words in bolded blue above, which remain till this day within the KJV, have been found to be absent from the oldest manuscripts, and as such have been deleted from virtually ALL modern versions of the bible. Do not take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

Those words were a deliberate and later insertion designed to advance the Trinity doctrine.

What the OP fails to recognize is that what this shows is that the text has contained several and differring insertions, deletions and some good degree of engineering. Now, none of that may be relevant if it is not significant in degree, but what shall we say when, as in the instance I have cited, the alteration advances specifically controversial dogma?

That dogma is one of the pillars of reluigious disagreement between christians and other groups, and amongst christians through the centuries. This has actually accounted for the very violent death of many hundreds of thousands of people.

When we realize that such deliberate insertions have been the source of mindless and deadly controversies which in centuries past led to people being burned for heresy, it then beats the imagination that the OP can contend that "it does not matter who wrote the bible."

And it is even less helpful, when these issues are raised, for the OP to retreat in a most unseemly fashion into unnecessary arrogance, grandstanding imbued with insults and the like. One then wonders whether the OP merely desired people to read the article and nod in dazed agreement with everything therein. If that was the desire of the OP, then the OP needn't post such on a public forum.

I would have liked to see the OP forget about my distasteful personality and address these issues directly. Otherwise I humbly suggest that the OP deploys her powers as a moderator to delete or lock this thread, since it is not intended to accomodate contrary opinion?

SSaemoenl:
I want to see him dress in suit for once!

Enjoy - - -

Ystranger:
Wrong! The Hausas and Malians copied it from the Yorubas.

This is absolutely false.

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

As per the cultural issue: let me just say this - Wherever the agbada originates from, it certainly is not European, is it?

The Grand Boubou/Bubu is one of the names for a flowing wide sleeved robe worn by men in much of West Africa, and to a lesser extent in North Africa, related to the Dashiki suit. It is known by various names, depending on the ethnic group wearing them: Agbada (Yoruba, Dagomba), Babban Riga (Hausa), K'sa (Tuareg) Grand Boubou (in various Francophone West African countries) and the English term of Gown. The Senegalese Boubou, a variation on the Grand Boubou described below, is also known as the Senegalese kaftan. The female version worn in some communities is also known as a M'boubou or Kaftan.

Its origin lies with the clothing worn by the Islamized Tukulor, Mandé and Songhai peoples of the historic 8th Century Takrur and Ghana Empires, and 13th Century Mali and Songhai Empires, (See Bisht and Kaftan for information on these).

The use of the Grand boubou as clothing became widespread throughout the West African region with the migration of semi-nomadic groups such as the Fulani, and traders such as the Dyula and Hausa. Comparing the Grand boubou to the various styles of Arabic [[[Thawb]] suggests the Grand boubou follows an archaic template to the contemporary male clothing of the Middle East and North Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbada

What is annoying about the Hat is that it is such an obvious European relic. . . which is incongruous when you then term it a "traditional" outfit of an African tribe. It simply is not indigenous to Africa and as such looks ridiculous. . .

And i say this despite the fact that I am from Rivers State myself. I mean, the Agbada/ Boubou, Baban Riga is simply regal. The Niger-Delta oufit is not bad either if we would just lose the silly European Hat.

I have an English name, but I do not use it: my original Ijaw name sounds more like who I am.

^^^^ Ha! Get back to the topic, you say! The issues I raised were about the topic! For which you gave me no categorical responses, but chose gratuitous insults. And now you ask me to get back to the topic. Sis, I was always on the topic. Simple fact is you dont want to hear a contrary view. And if this is the case, then you should not post on a public forum.

Anyway, e je ka file. I am not sure that I have ever presented myself as one who is waiting up for a thumbs up from anybody. If that were the case, I would not advertise my obviously radical views within a forum dedicated to such a blindly, and and I dare say, hypocritically religious nation as Nigeria is.

I take your post. I will be honest enough to say that it leaves me with some annoyance on account of your presumptions. But as you have said: we let sleeping dogs sleep. Happy Easter.

^^^^

JeSoul:
You can google dilly-dally if you didn't understand what it means.

No Madam, I was not referring to that. I was referring to this:

JeSoul:
your usual psuedo-pro-bono irritated-lawyer style today. So please indeed, [b]

- - - for which I repeat my thanks.

For the rest of your response: I can only say thanks again, and grrrrrrrr!

My dear, we know full well what turned you off. It was one instance of disagreement in your role as moderator, was it not. Far be it from me to mention the instance, though.

JeSoul:
clever people lol. I'm just being introduced to the 'official' term. Thanks!

You have come again. You do realize the OP is asking/speaking within the christian/biblical context?

Yes madam, I do. That however does not constrain my desire or freedom to share my random thoughts on the subject.

Cheers, Jesoul.

Grrrrrrrr.

JeSoul:
^Okay DS, I have heard you. Me I no get time for dilly-dally and shilly-shally -

Yep, as expected;  anything contrary to your view is dilly-dally and shally-shally. By the way, many thanks for the underlying gratuitous insults. The Tudor-istic Pastor AIOs and co have made me used to worse.

I actually think you have become one of the people most intolerant of contrary opinion on this board. It surprises me that you bother.

Feel free to imbible the writings of anybody. . . so long as there is faith.

AchoooooooW! Oh; that was a sneeze.

As a quick addendum to the above. This does not mean that i do not recognise the fact that it is the message that counts, and not the messenger.

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.