₦airaland Forum

@ nuclearboy

Ignoring the mumus united deliberately.

I deliberately held back on writing more, i.e. after the initial query of my first post, due to a number of things I know. I still prefer to hold back (and I am still holding back quite a lot) due to that and various other reasons. Nevertheless, because of your interjection and just for general attention, I put forward a number of considerations below.


1. We all see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12) and thus (a) even if we have a full knowledge and understanding of the Bible, we would still not have full knowledge of the truths and mysteries of God; and (b) in any event, we modern men are never likely to be able to have full knowledge and understanding of the Bible because there are simply too many factors limiting us including that, arguably, that is exactly the way it is intended to be.

2. In trying to do our best to understand the Bible we should bear in mind that there are at least two (types of) meanings to any passage of scripture; (a) the objective meaning(s) or meaning(s) intended by the writer; and (b) the possible applied meaning(s) of the passage i.e. how the passage may be used legitimately subjectively even in contexts not originally intended by the writer.

3. We must humble ourselves to pray for God through the Holy Spirit to guide and illuminate our (attempts at) understanding the Bible both in relation to its objective/intended meaning(s) as well as to the possible applied meaning(s).

4. We must strive to make the most of the intellectual tools available to us. Christians over the years and scholars generally have devised various guides and tools to assist with prising out the meanings of things written in the Bible. Check out the wikipedia entries on Biblical Hermeneutics and on Exegesis for example.

5. However, in relation to 4, we must bear in mind that: (a) not necessarily everybody will accept the appropriateness of (all of) those tools; and (b) even if they do, not necessarily everyone will apply them accurately or properly.

6. The thing about "private interpretation" is understandable but can be dangerous. Understandable in the context of possible applied meaning(s) which can be very subjective but dangerous if it ends up denying or contradicting the intended/objective (or even universal?) meaning(s).

7. Now, I add a very personal rule of mine: first things first is that one must read the words of Jesus Himself very very very carefully first and foremost and above everything else, (a Bible with His words marked in red can be very desirable for this purpose); then, any other thing one reads anywhere else in the Bible, or anywhere else whatsoever for that matter, must be read in light of one's genuine and best understanding of Jesus' teachings; for me, if it does not accord with Jesus' teaching, it is to be discarded.

^^^ In your experience, are there common criteria? Would you accept anything put forward as common criteria?

I remember a chap putting on forward some criteria for interpreting the Bible which led to some rather interesting discussions.


https://www.nairaland.com/882034/10-basis-scripture-interpretation

Pastor AIO: I'm not disputing it's accuracy. All I asked was what are the criteria by which we will know which interpretations are truth and which aren't.

I'm glad you do not dispute the accuracy of my statement which I take as meaning you, positively, accept it to be accurate. If not, do clarify.

Anyhoooos, I remember you once wrote the below:

From here https://www.nairaland.com/488643/you-commanding-mornings#6486953

Pastor AIO: . . . . Don't allow people who preach from their misunderstanding of mistranslations of mistranslations of the bible to lead you astray. . . . .

Obviously you must have used some criteria for this conclusion in which case, shouldn't your own criteria suffice ---- even if only for you?

First, I didn't plan to engage in any debate on this thread but simply to encourage; but ok things hapen and discussions evolve.

Alrighty then! Is this statement accurate or not?

Second: be warned that a lot of interpretations of the Bible and claims about what the Bible says, even church sermons are not (full) truths. {In a sense some church sermons can be compared to the Midrash ---- not reliable for a considerable part}

Jem1: You are talking about 10 or 20 naira for the poor beggar, I read some 'tither' on Nairaland advice that even if your child is ill and dying, on no account must you use Pastor's Tithe (Levitical Tithe) for hospital bills. That's how entrenched and vice-like the hold of fear and bondage is

That one was particularly terrible. Haba!

Ah, something interesting to add.

Even before his repentance, the publican who apparently did not tithe was probably far richer (or far more blessed if you like) than the Pharisee who "tithed all he possessed"!

And the Pharisee who tithed "all he possessed" was still not righteous whereas a repentant publican and sinner who apparently did not tithe was justified.

Oh and hanging question: would a person tithing all he possessed have tithed slaves if he possessed slaves?

Yọ fun un --- make yourself available for a pass from your teammate

(In Ibadan accent) sẹgun (NOT Shẹgun) soot, sẹgun soot, sẹgun soot, suku m'bọ. Translation (IICC v Rangers): Shẹgun (Ọdegbami) shoot the ball, (Christian) Chukwu is coming at you!

T'o ba ta felefele, ẹ sha balẹ --- if he messes about, e.g. dribbling our defenders, just bring him down.

Sliding tackle

(In Ibadan accent): off sooting = up the Shooting Stars (i.e. IICC)


Ẹ fi won ta draught! ---- Pass the ball around them as with draught moves.

Slight corruption as I can't remember how it went properly.

Do a Pondamali = shine in goal like rather good former Tanzanian (I think) goalkeeper called Pondamali.

Play abana shot i.e. heavy shot

Play banana shot ---- curving 'Brazilian' style shot.

Unfortunately, I didn't read every page, so sorry if these are duplicated.

Gẹ'run fun (barb hair for him) or wọn height ẹ (measure his height) both meaning to dribble by playing the ball over opponent's head ---- classic example was Okocha over John Barnes' head in Eagles' friendly with England around 1995.

S'ọgẹdẹ s'ọbọ (throw banana to monkey) --- play easy ball to keeper which that one uses to shine.

Gba bi ma gba bẹ (go this way and not that way) ----- send keeper wrong way with pẹnarity kick.

brainpulse: I believed I wasn't just created to live this life the way several people had lived, some their impact felt and some just went like that. There must be a definite purpose to my life that I have not yet discovered, or maybe it's only me, well I just knew there is a purpose to this life and for me to know I must find the "thing" that started life.
I had forgotten this thought until one night, it was heavy on me I was disturbed in my heart and began to shed tears in the sincerity of my heart.
Something happened that day that changed the course of my belief. My mother came to my place the next morning before going to work, she said she had a dream that I was in a thick darkness, looking for my way and I was beating about in the darkness, and when I couldn’t find my way out, I became tired and was giving up. She said she saw a man with a candle coming to help me out of the dark, the man was calling my name, but I couldn’t hear him. She said she woke up from the dream she began to pray, and she said God told her to come and pray for me. I shivered I couldn't believed it because nobody in this world knew what I went through the night. I am telling you Nairaland nobody, I repeat nobody knew it. How could God knew what I went through despite my unbelief in his existence. I broke down I sobbed like a child, my mother was crying with me though she didn’t understand why I was crying. From that day I believed in him, and I am very happy I did. I am telling you, to me then what happened was just like a, i cant just explain it.

When one reads something like this (or himself/herself have a comparable experience of one's own), all this big big grammar like "exegesis", "hermeneutics" etc etc take secondary place.

Snowwy: . . . . Abraham gave tithe of all, no issues. However it is understood is left to the reader. . . .

The above was addressed only very recently, yet . . . . . .


From https://www.nairaland.com/911729/can-churches-survive-without-offering#10579392

Enigma: If your example for your claim that some one "tithed all he possessed" is Abram, then the example is false; what it means is that you are adding to scripture.

The Bible does not say he {i.e. Abram or Abraham} gave tithes of "all he possessed"; he gave tithes of "all", but Hebrews 7 clarifies for us that "all" refers to "spoils" of war. So what Abram gave was tithes of 'all' he seized in war not "all he possessed".

On your other point: before we go into issues of other examples of money under Mosaic regime: are you denying i.e. are you arguing that the money offering in the case of the widow and the initial consideration in the case of Judas' 30 shekels were not under the Mosaic regime?

First things first. May God and Jesus Christ give you witness in your heart and in your mind of the truth of the Good News i.e. of the Gospel. That is more important than anything.

Second: be warned that a lot of interpretations of the Bible and claims about what the Bible says, even church sermons are not (full) truths. {In a sense some church sermons can be compared to the Midrash ---- not reliable for a considerable part}

Third, you may need to spend more time trying to make sense in your own way of what the Bible is saying.

Finally, the questions you are asking are good questions; some of them have always baffled and will always baffle.

Best wishes

Image123: Some atheists have a better 'testimony' since they stopped believing in God, they are right no? i find non-tithers more materialistic than tithers. Coincidence?

Now now now! From experience and observation, I will go as far as saying that the bolded is a gross untruth ----- a major falsehood.

1. Most tithers, especially in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, tithe for material reasons! They are hoping/believing that by "tithing" they will be "blessed", 'devourer' will be 'rebuked' etc.

2. You will find that deliberate and considered "non-tithers" in general are not motivated by material gains for their position; otherwise they too will go with the "I want to be blessed so I must tithe" herd.

3. I will also claim that a considerable number, arguably the majority, of "tithers" do NOT do it because they love God; we would have seen them show that they love God if they are in the habit of following what God and Jesus said about how to show you love God. The fellow who attends church on a Sunday and "pays" his tithe while there but cannot spare 10 or 20 naira for the poor beggar outside the church is not necessarily demonstrating love for God!

It is your problem if you cannot deal with my post e.g. whether your role model tithing "all" he possessed would have tithed slaves if he "possessed" slaves.

In truth, I didn't expect you to engage such questions honestly.

One thing we have both done is to provide readers with perspectives to consider. That is at least useful enough.

Snowwy: @Enigma,
As you can see, my response was to add to Jem1's scriptures. The last scripture was said by a Pharisee as well since Jem1 said the pharisees only tithed 'farm produce'.

Your response is your response as well as your choice and as well as your own problem.

Snowwy: If you have a problem with Luke 18:12 (as always) ask for the Holy Spirit to guide you...that is why the scripture says the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life.
Next time study in context, Jesus spoke here for people 'who believed they were righteous and despised others'.

The bolded is nonsense of course; you start spouting this rubbish once your duplicitous and mischievous proof-texting is shown up for the fraud that it is.

Snowwy: The pharisee did not come to pray but to boast and despise his fellow man and that was simply what Christ was against.
However, as usual, I understand you guys will pick what was not meant because you are looking for 'holes'.

Giving and other good works do not justify.....no one ever said it does, Christ justifies and saves and then your good works will be praiseworthy....as simple as ABC.

How far did your example and friend, indeed your role-model, the Pharisee's "tithing" of "all he possessed" get him? Not very far obviously; in fact, nowhere ---- even a publican, a sinner, who did not tithe anything apparently was justified and your role model "tither" was not.

Snowwy: The funniest thing that you guys who speak just of 'farm produce' fail to note that almost all blessings of obeying God's commands in the OT has to do with blessings of the field, of rain, of increase of the ground, of the winepresses being filled, of the vine not casting her fruit before its time, of increase of animals etc. Your anology proves that all other occupations did not get blessed by God in the OT.
Today, I hope you guys do not also go back to the OT and quote all those blessings 'figuratively' for yourselves.

All the tribes of Israel (apart from Levites) had land as inheritance, therefore even if they had other occupations, they still farmed. That was their major substance.

Show us from the Bible where God commanded people to tithe anything other than farm produce and livestock.

Snowwy: @Enigma, if you have been lying in wait for me, you are wasting your time. Tithe has been dicussed fully on NL...so I won't be drawn into any other dicussion with you (or your scholars), go back and read what has been said before.

I don't need to lie in wait for you; you will always be trapped by your own duplicity if you engage in such. Even if I never post on nairaland again, there will always be someone able to point out such duplicity.

Luke 18:12 (KJV)
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

The above was expected of course. NID

But let us see what Jesus said about the person who says "I give tithes of all I possess"

Luke 18

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

So according to Jesus a "sinner", a publican, was justified and not the one boasting "I give tithes of all I get." Nice.

Additional considerations

1. Assuming he did really tithe all he "possessed", would he also have tithed slaves? Would a person who "possessed" slaves have also tithed slaves?

2. Do today's "tithers" really tithe all they "possess" or is it another case of selective application ---- the same way they ignore all the other forms of tithing commanded in the Bible --- like the one for family jollification?

3. In any event there was NO obligation on any Jew of the age to tithe all he possessed; God did NOT give any such command or direction. Scholars have noted that some Pharisees did do so in order to show off that they were "righteous" but we have seen Jesus say it did not even give them any particular "righteousness" and even a sinner who did not pay/give tithes was justified rather than the tither.

4. Some scholars have queried the rendering "possess" arguing that a better translation would be something like "acquire" or "increase" --- leading to a reading like "I give tithes of all I acquire (or of all my increase)"

When {boxer X} hits you, you stay hit.

When God saves you, you stay saved.

bigd4050: Actually, to be an atheist means you reject God's teachings. They have no greater understanding of God's word than cattle . . . .

The bolded reminds me of an old post.

From https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/2#9514467

Enigma: . . . .
5. Lack of belief in God is substantively different from belief in the non-existence of God thus a dog, a cow, a monkey is as much an "atheist" as the evangelical atheist! (Very good company ; and as a bonus: insist that man is an ape but become angry if called a monkey )

chuks49: The Delta State Government on Tuesday maintained that it had no official reaction to the jail term handed down to former Delta State Governor, James Ibori, by a London Court.
The government insisted that Ibori remained a private citizentill he was sentenced by the court, noting that it would be inappropriate for the state government to take a position on a “purely private’’ matter.
The state Commissioner for Information, Mr Chike Ogeah, told our correspondent in Asaba that it was not the job ofthe government to take a stand on such issues.
“He (Ibori) is a private citizen. Delta state government cannothave an official position on a purely private matter,” Ogeah said. . . . . .

Very stup.id statement by duplicitous thieving mumus!

Did he not steal money belonging to the state? Does that alone not make it the business of the state?

Would a responsible, honest (non-thieving) government not be interested in recovering the state's stolen money --- especially with a view to using it beneficially in the interest of the state and its people?

Of course, them go talk this kind nonsense because if them talk more, people fit begin ask questions about them own ongoing shenanigans.

Yẹyẹful!

davidylan: Just as i expected, all the slowpoke does is simply go ahead and copy someone else's claims. Bring your own independently verified claims of contradictions and let us talk. I get tired of brainless trolls who simply have nothing but the debunked regurgitated nonsense of others to spew.

I notice you registered just last month, i've been here 7 yrs. Don Morgan's claims have been exhaustively discussed here on too many threads to mention. You're not providing us anything new bro.

Just 2 examples of threads discussing your same link 3-4 yrs ago!
https://www.nairaland.com/109542/obscenities-ordained#1910764
https://www.nairaland.com/109525/bible-february-puzzle#1920852

Come up with something new pls. We are sick and tired to the point of exhaustion of having to deal with the same lazy stealing from websites to proof a point you dont understand. Surely you can come up with your own contradictions no?

Re the red bolded ---- the same mumus are registering and re-registering with various/multiple IDs; I had noticed that some while ago. Most of them are not worth bothering with to be honest ---- except to show them up for the fools they are as is being done even on this thread.

Avicenna: I think I will do that.

So you are adding dishonesty to your new found atheism?

Who "derailed" the thread? Afterall, you say you've clarified your position and you claim to have seen me clarify mine.

Now you agree that I "derailed" the thread "cowardly".

^^^ Ọmọde ko mọ ogun, o npe l'ẹfọ.

It is not my business whether some people want to talk about the existence or non-existence of God.

I posted a comment in support of a comment I agreed with. My post was in line with flow of discussion on the thread. If people did not take time to understand my post or if some have comprehension problems, I cannot be held responsible ---- having expressed myself quite clearly enough in the first place.

Whether the "exchange of words" continues or not does not bother me.

Interesting, now you consider it "unnecessary" . . . .

I will post what I choose to post. You will just have to live with that.

If you peddle tosh as "intellectual discussion" and pass it off as part of Christianity then you have an issue with my post --- otherwise you just seem to be demonstrating my point about atheists, especially evangelical atheists, and obtuseness.

Avicenna: Hahaha.......
I do not need your convincing. If you think I don't understand what you wrote, you are deluded. That's the problem. You think you are superior. If that's what you think,you shouldn't have commented, from your post you said nothing about the 'tosh' you claimed they peddled.
I will not get into a slugfest with you. I didn't come here to insult people neither have I insulted anybody since. I expect same courtesy from everybody. Understand?

You say someone is "deluded" and in the same breath claim not to come/not to "insult" anybody.

OK: from your responses to both of my posts, if you think you understand my point, I am certain that you are seriously deluded.

Avicenna: And you that is 'sufficiently informed' and able to 'challenge' why don't you 'expose' our 'nonsense'.
Why don't you show your 'intellectual muscle'? I can assure if you can do that convincingly(defend your God), most people here(I talk for myself) won't be atheist.
But you can't . You can only defend when aspects of your bible is attacked,the unverifiable bible is the only thing you can defend.

I don't remember having engaged in discussion with you in the past. I don't care whether (you think) you were, are, have become an atheist or whatever.

I don't care to show you or anyone my "intellectual muscle"; I am not interested in convincing you or the evangelical atheists here of the existence of God.

I know that atheists, especially evangelical atheists, are generally obtuse; so to spell it out for you, I am more concerned with some instances where people peddling utter tosh, claiming it to be "intellectual discussion", pass such nonsense off as part of Christianity.

If you still don't understand that; tough. I won't be surprised anyway.

nuclearboy: . . .

I'm always here but watching. . . .

Ọga Nuke, how now?

Sorry, I've not kept my word! I'm in town but I've been moving around a lot (even through West Africa). I'm still around for another week but with plenty of runnings yet.

However, if plans work out, I should be back in July to stay for around three months.

Cheers.

davidylan: I tend to post less than 3 yrs ago - i have a job now and this place is not as stimulating as it once was. Its populated now by empty barrels who shout really loud but convey nothing.

I have no idea what you mean when you say my belief evolved over time. That's news to me. Seems you're making things up as you go along.

I agree with the red bolded. Both risibly and annoyingly they peddle utter tosh as "intellectual discussion" just because most of the audience is not sufficiently informed to be able to challenge and/or expose their nonsense. I generally ignore them and laugh at them privately and usually only get involved when some nonsense is passed off or represented as part of Christianity either ignorantly or, with the evangelical atheists in particular, fraudulently.

Alhaji Sikiru Ayinde aka "Barry Wonder" don talk am with gangan talking drum: "baba ọbọ, ọbọ; ọmọ ọbọ, ọbọ".

See the case in the following link also - even if the guy did not follow any particular "religion".

https://www.nairaland.com/795146/omg-there-really-god