₦airaland Forum

Honour

Punch him and say Goodbye

911 is her speed dial

Don't mean to interrupt but whose winning so far?

N[b]ko[/b]si, sikelel' iAfrika

the_telz

Hug him tightly

I led the brigade of Ghadaffi's female bodyguards (rip Boss)

Nigeria has the best music on the continent

emöthin

Chimurenga
     
(look it up or have a listen)

My phone number is: 07789143570

I was born as a Man

Killing me softly

Fornicate

Present

Next:

mcnepower + BK911 sitting in a tree

slaps him with ten hot kisses

Sticks and Stones

A red thong

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=808416.msg9980921#msg9980921 date=1326756809]Hi Emofine. Thanks for your kind words and your reasoned reply. The laws of God are indelibly written in all creations of God. What men call Nature is just a small part of Gods creations. The sacred scriptures of religions in its pure form are simply a physical condensation of the language of God that vibrates in creations. Thus a prophet or servant of God due to an ability granted to him or her by God gives physical form to this living language of God by cloaking them into earthly words and sentences. A genuine seeker will absorb the words and sentences in such a way that the words and the sentences opens the door to the living laws of God. In other words, the genuine seeker should be able to experience the same living language of God which the prophet or servant of God have condensed into words and sentences. The words and the sentences are only forms or shells but a genuine seeker must uncover or unclothe the shells or the coverings so that he will experience the seed (the living language of God). This living language of God cannot be accurately depicted in human words and language. It is not possible to reproduce in human language that which is Living and "Infinite".

Thus it is possible to know of GOD without coming into physical contact with any of the sacred books. Buried deep and as an integral part of our spirit is a spiritual receiver and transmitter which is called intuition. This intuition can easily recognize the living language of God. Unfortunately, like a diamond buried in mud, the purity of spiritual intuition is crowded or enveloped by the propensities of our material bodies. It is for this reason that many cannot hear the voice of the spirit. God in his infinite Love sends his messengers to awaken man from the slumber, that is, to help humankind tear away the dross that covers the intuition. Once the intuition is free, it cannot but recognize God and his Will for the ultimate recognition of God is hardwired in the spirit. Because each individual is different, what will awaken them varies. Some may find the trigger in very painful experiences, others in the Bible, Koran, Vedic scriptures, etc while some others may find the opening of the voice of their spirit on the mountain top, gazing in a Night sky or even by looking at the complexity of biological systems. Whatever is the trigger, one thin is certain, once the gate of the spirit opens to perceive the will of God, that spirit can only live and breathe LOVE. LOVE, GENUINE LOVE is the fundamental characteristic of an awakened spirit. Such an awakened spirit only lives and breathes love for he is now linked for all times with GOD who is the source and origin of LOVE.

Gems of Truth in all sacred books do not contradict each other for the Truth cannot contradict itself. A genuine seeker will be able to pick any sacred book and be able to absorb the truths that is in them, while discarding the untruths. Each human being who has humility and is seeking for God will find God irrespective of what his earthly religion is. Like I said above when they have found the living language of God, they will only live one supreme law of God, that is to love God and to love all creations of God. Stay blessed.[/quote]Wow. Intriguing.

If you don't mind me asking, what religion (if any) do you adhere to? What books have you read or currently reading? What informed your current way of thinking?
The way you write is like painting a picture. Very vivid.

davidylan:
No. it actually makes nonsense of the very pivot of this thread. If Mary openly referred to Joseph as Jesus' father, then its probable that it must have been a fairly common way of describing the relationship between Joseph and Jesus. Why then would it be a surprise to see the bible translators use a word that was fairly common usage at the time?

Please see my modified version. I've revised my statement.

davidylan:
This is absurd.

1. Do you build an entire physics curriculum around a single chapter? Why then do we consistently struggle too hard to read "inconsistencies" into the bible by dishonestly taking one verse out of context?

Well in all seriousness I was being sincere. My intentions was not to cause mischief, neither was I trying to read or imagine whatever "inconsistencies" into realization.

The books of Isaiah, matthew and Luke are VERY CLEAR in the NIV version on the virgin birth concept . . . and you're getting hung up on the word "father"? Methinks someone is trying way too hard to find examples to buttress a pre-conceived idea.

*sigh*. . .As I have said before in my previous post addressed to you, of course plenty of other verses were going to give credit to the nature of his birth.
Now I'm beginning to think you're the one "hung up" because I used a Bible verse in my illustration that I believe was inconsistent. Did you also happen to take in the rest of my opening post? Ok, I found it easy to sieve through the Bible than any other book but this thread was not supposed to soley highlight inaccuracies in the Bible. I was considering all the Abrahamic Faiths (as they all use a Book as a guide) and unfortunately used a biblical verse to offer an example.

Again daft. Where in that verse do you see a lie? Is Joseph not father to Jesus Christ by virtue of marriage to His mother?

When i accused you earlier of being lazy . . . it wasnt an insult. This is the KJV . . .

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

I'm not too big for correction so thanks for the correction.

but of course . . . .

[quote author=emöfine link=topic=808416.msg9980260#msg9980260 date=1326748925]However I don't believe it's an accident that in the KJV (the first English translated text) of the Bible that Jesus nor the writers of the book never referred to Joseph as the "Father" of Jesus even when the genealogy was listed (correct me if I'm wrong).[/quote]However it was Mary that employed the word "father" when addressing Jesus. Now I believe it's you taking things out of context currently.
So it still doesn't defeat my point that Jesus never referred to Joseph as Father. Although I have learnt something today. The KJV did in fact use the word Father when highlighting the relationship between Jesus and Joseph.

they only do to those who are busy ferreting for "contradictions" to fuel their own pre-conceived idea that the bible cannot be the word of God by which we should model our lives.

I used that verse from a particular translation in the bible to highlight my theme and convey my point. Quaranic contradictions and ones from the Torah are also welcome here.

The bible was translated by man from the original languages in which they were written, thus it is to be expected that certain inaccuracies in terms or translation may exist. HOWEVER, the key messages, archeological and historical facts have been proven time and time again to be accurate.

If you asked 3 people to translate a dictionary to igbo independently . . . it would be incredulous to expect them to arrive at the same translations for every single word.

I appreciate this point.

naijajive:
Let me know how many books you can find

Only found 13 . My eyes are hurting now.

You should post this in the Games Section

Bugs Bunny

Daffy Duck

Stubborn Mule

"Yakubu" and "Kaita"

@davidylan

Now you see how ones message can suddenly change . . .be altered?
I believe I was careful to highlight that I was considering a verse and "that" "particular" verse does serve to undermine the "virgin birth". It's a pretty huge theme to completely gloss over so I gather that other verses will give credit to the nature surrounding Jesus's birth. It would be detrimental to their publishers not to.

In my opening post I said a lie is merely a perversion of the truth. Lies are subtle and largely are made up of truths so that the structure appears similar but not identical. But of course a half truth equals a whole lie.
I had considered that particular verse (and others) and even this topic for the longest time. All you have said to me is nothing new. I had also pondered on those thoughts myself. Joseph was his surrogate father after all so what is the big deal in labeling this man as Jesus's "Father" I questioned myself. I also used to reason that people by and large will understand the role being depicted in that verse.

Yet in another version - the KJV - the writers never for once substituted Joseph as Jesus's Father - which I found deliberate, careful, consistent (regarding that) and remarkable. I even used to take offense on Joseph's behalf that this man who acted as the surrogate Father to Jesus was not once accorded that title "Father" by the writers or Jesus himself. I don't believe it was random at all.
Rightly or wrongly I do get drawn to detail a lot and sometimes bogged down by it all but I highlighted this particular verse because I believed it to be quite significant. Little things like that alter the totality.

"ignorant folks". . .
hmmm well I will confess that I am ignorant on many things pertaining to the Bible and Christianity - and so are other Christians. But I'm still learning and that's why I ask these constant questions.

Also see post no.3 on this very thread. So is HisChild also inducted in that "long line of ignorant folks who merely spew the "inconsistencies in the bible" nonsense that you either heard or read from somewhere else" ?

It's not the belief of non-Christians alone.

Furthermore can it be said that every single thing in the Bible is 100% accurate?

Interview

davidylan:
this is a very lazy statement. In our society, if a man marries a woman with children from a previous relationship . . . those children are regarded as his STEP-CHILDREN just as he automatically assumes the role of STEP-FATHER to them.

I agree my opening post was very lazily scripted but I hope you got the crux of my argument or question rather.
I am aware that children can have a Parent(s) that maintains a Step role. However I don't believe it's an accident that in the KJV (the first English translated text) of the Bible that Jesus nor the writers of the book never referred to Joseph as the "Father" of Jesus even when the genealogy was listed (correct me if I'm wrong).
It's almost as if they were careful regarding that.

I only used one example to demonstrate the deviations and contradictions of various texts in the Bible. If that particular NIV passage did not dilute any message from your own perspective then you have to understand for others this is actually a grave statement and error.
No doubt Joseph would have appeared as the surrogate father of Jesus but the difference in your example and the translated version I shared is that I would have thought that the "virgin birth" of Christ was a significant theme in the Bible. So why water that concept down? I'm sure you are aware that there are many people that already believe Joseph to be the biological Father of Jesus. That NIV translation only serves to strengthen such notions.

Your clueless point there is akin to saying - "calling me the father (albeit step) to my wife's son undermines the fact that the child has a biological father". Does that make sense?

Like I've already said the birth surrounding Jesus was different. So a child who has a Step Father can call their Mother's spouse "Father" if they so wish but that doesn't betray the nature of their birth. Even Jesus himself never referred to Joseph as his "Father" - well in the version I read.

Having said that, whether you agree with my "lazy statement" or not it doesn't change the fact that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. The book that many claim to be "the undiluted Word of God".
I can construct a sentence now and even if that sentence was true but someone else then fiddled the texts around or subtracted or added a/some words from my original statement the whole message thus changes - kinda like Chinese whispers.

So if indeed a Book is what governs many believers, is such a tool sufficient enough to guide millions in faith considering a book is susceptible to being tampered with?

After all it is very very easy to manipulate pages in a book. If I was Cruella De vil and God indeed put the "truth" inside a book then I would be having a heyday because that is probably one of the easiest tools in danger of being tampered with. The first thing I would do is to attack the Bible.

Thus I wondered, couldn't this God package His message of truth via a bulletproof medium - one that cannot be manipulated for greedy and selfish people's gains?
Couldn't this God inscribe this truth in the template of our being?
Could God not have written this book himself? - In fact I just remembered. Once upon a time he wrote the original tablets of the ten commandments in which Moses destroyed when he was angry with the actions of the Israelites, thus even God's own hand written script can be damaged - well that is what I learnt from that episode.

@m_nwankwo

A genuine seeker must bestir himself inwardly. Thus, his spirit must become mobile. The mobility then permits the spirit not just to perceive the physical expression of the language of God but to sense in real time the living language of God which a messenger of God tried to clock with the sentences and words in various sacred books.

Excuse me for my late response but I had only now taken the time to read your beautiful post in it's entirety. It was pretty dense so I had to digest it in parts. Quite intelligent and educational delivered in a poetic style.
I appreciate your reply and it's as if it was tailored specifically to someone like me (despite the fact that I am the author of this thread).

I believe you are right when you say in order for a word to become alive it requires much action.

Reading your post I instantly thought of John Muir's metaphor he used to describe nature . . ."The Book of Nature" - an animated extension of the written Bible. He perceived nature as a testament to God and even though I understand he was a christian and one that memorized the Bible well he used the creations as a means of understanding God.

There was a person who had found her faith without the encouragement of eager Evangelists which I found pretty remarkable - is that "intuition" at work?. She confessed that she did not read the Bible and other such Holy Scriptures but what she saw was the reflection of the "word of God" in a particular believer. She was reading that believer as one would read the pages of a book. She saw in that one believer the embodiment of the "word" and so was stirred. I found that quite astonishing that she witnessed instead what she later would regard as the truth as opposed to being informed about it.

In this way the genuine seeker will not get fixated at the various signposts but will be able to follow the road indicated by the signpost.

Yet These Books or "signposts" meet at a crossroad. So which road would a seeker thus follow?
You mentioned  "intuition" and I found that quite intriguing. Intuition surely differs from person to person . . .so is spirituality subjective or objective?
Is it also intuition that guides believers and not solely a book?
If we have intuition to rely on what use is a Book?

Snoop Dogg

Super Eagles