₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: The first thing that I disagree with here is the dichotomy of faith and reason. Nowhere does the Bible demand that a man must trade in his reason for faith. In fact, we are instructed and warned to test or prove everything, whether doctrine or spirit or concept (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1). Either word implies a need for intelligent comparison. Then we are told that the Salvation of Jesus Christ extended to our intelligence as well (Rom 12:2, 1 Cor 2:16). Faith never excludes reason, at least not in Christianity.

The next thing that I disagree with is your claim that, in part or whole, the Bible is a collection of myths tailored to suit Hebrew idiosyncracies and founding this claim on surmises made by the people you quoted. I am sorry, but I saw nothing in all that than guesswork based on similarities between literature from different cultures. But even at that, myths are easily debunked by throwing the test of reality at them.

For instance, if the Bible holds a degeneration from Creation till the Flood, and it promises another global destruction for the same reason, is a degeneration on the order of that which led to the Flood observable today?

If it is, the Flood was no myth. If it isn't, the Flood was a myth.

In addition to the points above a few general points:

1. This is what the vaunted Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre says about himself http://www.bibleorigins.net/websiteauthorbackground.html

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

You will of course be aware that there are proper experts as well as proper scholarship in these matters.

2. The debate on the dating of the Enuma Elis vis a vis Genesis is not really settled.

3. It does not matter anyway as it is not a big deal that similar motifs (NB not accounts, not stories; and note point 4 below) are found in different and sometimes even far flung places. In this particular case, the geography is of a relatively small area anyway.

4. Those who point out similarities between things like the Enuma Elis and e.g. Genesis of course fail to point out the dissimilarities and that in most cases the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities.

Even Wikipedia which is not exactly a friend of Christianity says:

The Enûma Eliš was recognized as bearing close relation to the Jewish creation in Genesis from its first publication (Smith 1876), and it was an important step in the recognition of the roots of the account found in the Bible, and in earlier Ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite and Mesopotamian) myth. The similarities are scant, however, and the strongest resemblance can be found in the etymology of "in the beginning" and "when on high." . . .

The two works have different aims. To address these similarities within a Christian framework, Conrad Hyers of the Princeton Theological Seminary maintains that the Genesis texts polemically address the Babylonian (and other Pagan world views). Specifically, Hyers views the aim of the Genesis myth as being to "repudiate the divinization of nature and the attendant myths of divine origins, divine conflict, and divine ascent," and rejects the idea that it borrowed from or appropriated the form of the Enûma Eliš. The Enuma Elish was comfortable using connections between the divine and inert matter while the Genesis account's aim was to trumpet the superiority of the Israelite God over all creation (and subsequent deities).

5. Even the last line in the quoted Wikipedia entry above is indicaion of the difference of the revelation recorded in Genesis and whatever "similar" motifs or even stories may have existed elsewhere.

6. Here is an example of a proper scholarly piece on the topic _http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_01_Millard_BabylonianGenesis.pdf

And here a more simplistic and far less rigorous piece but helpful on the contrast _http://carm.org/genesis-creation-enuma-elish

7. There are a number of these things that some people like to point to e.g. expect at some point to hear about The Epic of Gilgamesh etc etc

8. The one thing to always bear in mind is whether one is being presented with a jaundiced view or a view that is truly knowledgeable on the scholarship.



PS Oh, by the way, this is the source of the unacknowledged copy and Paste job quoting de la Torre _http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

PPS I have disabled some of the loinks because of the spam bot.

Ihedinobi: The first thing that I disagree with here is the dichotomy of faith and reason. Nowhere does the Bible demand that a man must trade in his reason for faith. In fact, we are instructed and warned to test or prove everything, whether doctrine or spirit or concept (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1). Either word implies a need for intelligent comparison. Then we are told that the Salvation of Jesus Christ extended to our intelligence as well (Rom 12:2, 1 Cor 2:16). Faith never excludes reason, at least not in Christianity.

The next thing that I disagree with is your claim that, in part or whole, the Bible is a collection of myths tailored to suit Hebrew idiosyncracies and founding this claim on surmises made by the people you quoted. I am sorry, but I saw nothing in all that than guesswork based on similarities between literature from different cultures. But even at that, myths are easily debunked by throwing the test of reality at them.

For instance, if the Bible holds a degeneration from Creation till the Flood, and it promises another global destruction for the same reason, is a degeneration on the order of that which led to the Flood observable today?

If it is, the Flood was no myth. If it isn't, the Flood was a myth.

In addition to the points above a few general points:

1. This is what the vaunted Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre says about himself http://www.bibleorigins.net/websiteauthorbackground.html

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

You will of course be aware that there are proper experts as well as proper scholarship in these matters.

2. The debate on the dating of the Enuma Elis vis a vis Genesis is not really settled.

3. It does not matter anyway as it is not a big deal that similar motifs (NB not accounts, not stories; and note point 4 below) are found in different and sometimes even far flung places. In this particular case, the geography is of a relatively small area anyway.

4. Those who point out similarities between things like the Enuma Elis and e.g. Genesis of course fail to point out the dissimilarities and that in most cases the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities.

Even Wikipedia which is not exactly a friend of Christianity says:

The Enûma Eliš was recognized as bearing close relation to the Jewish creation in Genesis from its first publication (Smith 1876), and it was an important step in the recognition of the roots of the account found in the Bible, and in earlier Ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite and Mesopotamian) myth. The similarities are scant, however, and the strongest resemblance can be found in the etymology of "in the beginning" and "when on high." . . .

The two works have different aims. To address these similarities within a Christian framework, Conrad Hyers of the Princeton Theological Seminary maintains that the Genesis texts polemically address the Babylonian (and other Pagan world views). Specifically, Hyers views the aim of the Genesis myth as being to "repudiate the divinization of nature and the attendant myths of divine origins, divine conflict, and divine ascent," and rejects the idea that it borrowed from or appropriated the form of the Enûma Eliš. The Enuma Elish was comfortable using connections between the divine and inert matter while the Genesis account's aim was to trumpet the superiority of the Israelite God over all creation (and subsequent deities).

5. Even the last line in the quoted Wikipedia entry above is indicaion of the difference of the revelation recorded in Genesis and whatever "similar" motifs or even stories may have existed elsewhere.

6. Here is an example of a proper scholarly piece on the topic http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_01_Millard_BabylonianGenesis.pdf

And here a more simplistic and far less rigorous piece but helpful on the contrast http://carm.org/genesis-creation-enuma-elish

7. There are a number of these things that some people like to point to e.g. expect at some point to hear about The Epic of Gilgamesh etc etc

8. The one thing to always bear in mind is whether one is being presented with a jaundiced view or a view that is truly knowledgeable on the scholarship.

^^^ I think you need to add "not" somewhere there, no?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]What you missed however is that the book of Job predates the Greek civilization. Traditionally, Job is believed to have lived centuries before Moses. So if anything, It is Greeks doing the plagiarizing as one cannot possibly copy from a text written after him.

Another thing I would like you to note is that it doesn't mention any Greek gods. It mentions Orion and Pleiades but definitely not as gods but as star constellations. It is the Greeks that will later come up with proper personalities for these terms[/quote]Yep, the Book of Job did not talk of Orion, Pleiades, or for that matter Leviathan as "gods".

I think we can also add to the mix the passage below from Ephesians 2:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ihedinobi: Now, why would you say something like that, I wonder? Believe me, I'm not frustrated with you guys. I have to have greater expectation of you guys to be frustrated and I don't. You all ask very silly questions, create incredible meanings of spiritual things just so you can attack them and make fun of them, insist that a Christian is dumb and won't use his mind then get upset that he actually does. . ., and I'm supposed to take you guys seriously? That was when I started debating you guys. I thought you guys had brains and could think and analyze things logically. I even excused your lack of spiritual understanding. But there's no sense in doing that anymore. It doesn't matter how many times and with how many of you I debate, your atheistic positions are thoroughly emotional and unscientific and because this is so, you accuse every serious debater who shoots holes in your arguments and renders them baseless as emotional and unscientific.

I no longer take you guys seriously, believe me. If I did, there'd be reason to compare me to davidylan. As it is, I just mock you guys when I think it's worth it to do so.

Y'all holla when y'all got real arguments against God.

Re-read and like considerably.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . Marriage as defined . . . . .[/quote]Ah, please permit a little digression.

First question (not at you particularly, Mr Anony just as a matter for general consideration): what is the definition of "marriage" currently?

Why this question? It is to point out that while meanings of words and even concepts may indeed change legitimately, often people will go to lengths of redefinition (what some call the 'redefinition game') and often use that to disguise or obscure the truth or to mislead others or to further certain agenda.

One example, atheists etc have appropriated the definition of "freethinker" whereas probably most of the atheists that deceive themselves as free thinkers are far from free in their thinking and are even slaves to some of their thought formers; the only thing "free" about it is a rejection of "religion".

Another example: atheists claim freedom of "religion" and for that purpose will define atheism as a religion; on the other hand they are ashamed socially to be seen as practising a religion and thus they end up in the absurd position of saying 'atheism is a religion but is not a religion'.

Going back to marriage, of course there has always been a traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man (or men re polyandry) and a woman or even women. In our present age and moving on from "civil partnerships", marriage is now to be defined as . . . . .

A propos the attitude of the evangelical atheists and reactions of others etc:

The first thing is that the evangelical atheists (and others who have not looked closely) like to put out the myth that atheists are particularly intelligent. The truth is that when a truly intelligent person seeks to engage in debate with the evangelical atheists you are soon shocked at how shallow (and even intellectually dishonest) many of them are actually.

This is not just about Nairaland evangelical atheists (although the case of most of them is incredibly bad and can be ridiculously juvenile) but has also been pointed out about the leading evangelists and bishops of the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Dennnett etc etc and even in the specific case of theology the same was pointed out about Stephen Hawking by no less than Britain's former official number one scientist.

See this post and the whole of this thread where painstaking effort was taken deliberately to show the lack of depth of evangelical atheists' standard arguments. https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/4#9584483


Because I like one particular line so much I will extract it here. Interestingly, the statement was made by a person who is himself an atheist. Per Terry Eagleton

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.

Dawkins' case is so bad that, for all his achievements elsewhere, I regard him as a theological dunce.

truthislight: dont get the scriptures wrong and confuse it.

John 1:1
That portion of the bible is simply saying that this Jesus that is come was a very big person in the beginning befor coming to earth. . . . .

Kyrie eleison!

^^^ Well, all I will say for now is for you to read my post again carefully in the context of the statement/post that I quoted before referring to Augustine and Anselm.

^^^ Please explain "make" true!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . .
[/i]
How does this relate to faith and reason? Simple (notice that at no point in the following steps do we discard reason), we start with an observable fact, we seek the originator, when we have found the originator, we ask the explanation of the fact. We can only know this explanation through revelation, we observe another aspect of this fact and we must rely on the originator to give further explanation.....and so on and so forth.
This is what my faith is all about - absolute reliance on the originator of all things. I know who God is and I totally rely on Him. . . .[/quote]Could be one way to understand/explain Augustine's Crede, ut intelligas (believe, so that you may understand) and Anselm's Credo ut intellegam (I believe so that I may understand).

^^^ 'Jesus The Name High Over All'

Jesus! the Name high over all,
In hell or earth or sky;
Angels and men before it fall,
And devils fear and fly.

Jesus! the Name to sinners dear,
The Name to sinners giv’n;
It scatters all their guilty fear,
It turns their hell to Heav’n.

Jesus! the prisoner’s fetters breaks,
And bruises Satan’s head;
Power into strengthless souls it speaks,
And life into the dead.

O that the world might taste and see
The riches of His grace!
The arms of love that compass me
Would all mankind embrace.

O that my Jesu’s heavenly charms
Might every bosom move!
Fly, sinners, fly into those arms
Of everlasting love.

Thee I shall constantly proclaim,
Though earth and hell oppose;
Bold to confess Thy glorious Name
Before a world of foes.

His only righteousness I show,
His saving grace proclaim;
’Tis all my business here below
To cry “Behold the Lamb!”

Happy, if with my latest breath
I may but gasp His Name,
Preach Him to all and cry in death,
“Behold, behold the Lamb!”

(Quality of recording below could be better though)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la4sZDDwjEA

^^^ That is a fabulous one and I follow it with the last two verses of the same chapter

Romans 8:38-39

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . I think the problem here is that you do not understand what is meant by Trinity at all. . . .[/quote]I think this is the very heart of the problem. I have pointed this out to several anti-Trinitarians on the forum, including especially some of the non-Christians most vehemently opposed to the doctrine or even the idea of the Trinity.

One other thing that I have also noticed about the opponents of the Trinity idea is a tendency to get rude and abusive instead of engaging with the arguments.


One more point while I am in ----- regarding God the Holy Spirit and "the spirit of God":

- The Holy Spirit is a specific "entity" in the Bible ---- very clearly; He instructed, forbad etc

- if speaking of the "spirit of God", you could even go as far as speaking of seven spirits of God e.g.

Revelation 1:4

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne

Revelation 3:1

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

But then even having spoken of the seven spirits of God, consider carefully the point of this post I made some time ago:

https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/1#6775459

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Just as God's "word" and His "breath" are both separable and inseparable from God so are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both separable and inseparable from God the Father.

^^^ I'm not convinced that you have a full understanding of the respective positions of the people you've mentioned i.e. me, Olaadegbu and Frosbel. In the case of Frosbel, he is actually against the Trinity doctrine.

You can get some idea of my views on the Trinity on various threads I don't want to list now.

However, for a number of reasons ---- including especially regarding the 'debate' about 1 John 5:7 ---- I will point to the thread in the following link.

https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting

Per Sir Francis Bacon the genius

. . . nothing can be more justly allotted to be the saying of fools than this: "there is no God".

Interestingly, I actually remember you comparing your own parents to Boko Haram for being Christians/religious/theists.

logicboy: Everyone is born an atheist. Many are just taught religion by their folks and friends. . . .

I came from a religious background and my folks were not happy. They promised fire and brimbstone when I confessed that I was an atheist. I only had to remind them that they are no different from a religious extremist that hates infidels (cough boko haraam/crusaders). . . .

^^^ Your cup will become full one day, and then . . . .

^^^ You have been told; insult me, insult your father . . .

^^^ Anytime you insult me, I will remind you that you insult your father . . . .

Logicbwoy: . . . When religious nutjobs like you have contributed to the destruction of Nigeria . . . .

You and Mr Anony are fools to even compare these things to the mental slavery that is christianity, especially to Africans. . . . .


The mental slavery that is christianity convinces people to destroy their own culture. . . .

As long as you will call your father a religious nutjob etc etc . . .

As long as you will call your father a fool

As long as you will say such things of your father . . . .

Without even dealing with the rest of your post, here is a selection of versions/translations that do not use "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16

NIV

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

ESV

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

ISV

By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight, kept righteous by the Spirit's might, adored by angels singing. To nations was he manifest, believing souls found peace and rest, our Lord in heaven reigning!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit; He appeared to Angels and was preached among the Gentiles; He was trusted in the world and he ascended into glory.

GWT

The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory.

Well, the good news ---- they are all still saying the same thing as

KJV

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.

In other words God, as Jesus Christ, came manifest in the flesh.



EDITED

blaqoracle: for those of you that still hold on to christianity as the only way to heaven then you must read this: christianity is the post slavery traumatic disorder resulting from colonial masters' conceptualization and perfection of their continued dominion of those they feel are subhuman: african, indians and arab. Every true african will never accept christianity as a religion because it continues remind us that we are slave, subhuman and conpuered.

Christianity reminds "us" that "we" are "slaves", "subhuman" and "conquered" and is pstd from colonial masters . . . ?

Hmmmmm

- speaking and writing in the English language
- living in colonial masters' countries like UK, US, Canada
- or at least looking/hoping for visas to go there
- subscribing to 'capitalism' and other economic systems introduced/advocated by colonial masters
- wearing suits, shirt (T M Lewin? ) and ties etc
- etc etc etc

Yeah, real "liberated" Africans.

Good job here, Olaadegbu.

And tangential to the issue of Jesus Christ, i.e. God The Son, as object of worship the Bible reflects this in many ways ---- except that people refuse to understand the synchronisation and the synthesis which lead to the inevitable demonstration of the Trinity. Consider the following verses, take them together and consider the implications on the "status" of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .

2 Cor 13:14

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Acts 15:11

No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved . . .

Titus 2:13 (according to the predominantly accepted rendering)

while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Jude 1:21

Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

One problem I have noticed with many people who struggle to understand or especially to accept God as Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) is that they are not able to get over the particular mental obstacle of just looking at Jesus and picturing Him solely in the flesh as a human being. In reality, they have not fully engaged with the issue of incarnation and they have not fully understood the ramifications of ascension in particular in addition of course to resurrection.

This is why they struggle when you quote that 1 Timothy 3:16

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.

(*Even if you go with the NIV's "He", you will still end with the same result)

** This one is for those who accuse us of cop-out when we speak of "mystery" --- God as 'mystery' and The Trinity as 'mystery'.

^^ Just like I did there and I have done here.

^^^ After you had already said several times he is one; as I said before it doesn't matter anyway because anytime you say something to me that I believe also applies to your father, I will point it out.

What about your mum by the way --- is she a Christian?

^^^ Is it not relevant?

Thanks; remember I will always point out to you when the same applies to your father.

Sure, when they deserved it; and so we call people on this forum the names and titles they deserve too.

^^^ If and when appropriate, yes.

Davydlan

Do you notice how many people are copying some of your expressions like "blowhards" "bloviate" etc; you should probably copyright some of them you know?