₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
It is true, not many know the background, that the first 300 years of what we know as Christianity, there wasnt any Christmas (i.e. no Christ's mass.) It just never existed, it wasn't so. It actually was Roman Emperor, Constantine who commandeered the pagan festival of Saturnalia to be converted and used to celebrate the birth of Christ, hence the December 25th that we have that pretends to be Jesus’ birthday, lol. Why didnt Fada Oluoma, look up on the internet first, what went on during the December 17-25 week long pagan feast, lol, holiday celebration of Saturnalia, lol and compare with Christmas festive period activites today, lol?

Actually that's not really factual and it's one of those misconception about Constantine's influence on Christianity that has been around for so long, that most people just tend to believe it's true. I believe it's right up there with "Constantine choosing the Christian Canon and him making Jesus God".
In reality the proposal of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus predates Constantine or any pagan influence. The earliest allusion to 25th comes from Bishop Hippolytus sometime around 202 ad
"The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam.”
This translates to December 25th, 2 BC. Also Julius Sextus Africanus came up with the same date around the same time. This is basically over a hundred years before Constantine and decades before Aurelian .

December 25th was not the only date that was proposed by the early church as Clement of Alexandria writes around 200 ad that different groups also proposed different dates
“There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of Pachon [May 20 ] … And treating of His Passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth [March 21]; and others on the 25th of Pharmuthi [April 21] and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi [April 15] the Savior suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].”
So for the first 200 yrs of Christianity, the church was silent on the birthday of Christ but apparently by the late 2nd century and early 3rd century there was an interest in pin pointing the date but this interest had nothing to do with pagan influence. It's worth noting that Christians during this period were still a persecuted minority group within the Roman empire,and they did their best to separate themselves from pagan practices and celebrations.
By the early 4th century before the conversion of Constantine, 2 dates were the leading ones, 25th of December and 6th of January( Mainly in the East) even though there was no official festivity associated with them.

There are a couple of leading theories of how these 2 dates were calculated as the Bible doesn't give much information but the most widely accepted one is:

Integral age: this concept has it's roots in Judaism. The basic idea is, all prophets of God enter and exit the world on the same day (Basically conception and death fall on the same day). So when the western church calculated the death of Christ as falling on the 25th of March (14th day of Nisan) it also meant he was conceived on the 25th of March. Add nine months to that and you get 25th of December as the day of birth.
The Eastern church calculation of the crucifixion fell on the 14th day of Artemisios on the Greek calendar which is April 6th. Add nine months and you get January 6.

There are other ways the dates were calculated devoid of pagan influence like the equinox and creation day theories attested to by church fathers writing.

As for the elephant in the room, theres no doubt that we can find pagan influences in the present day celebration of Christmas but this influences come mainly from the later centuries(the 6th century and beyond) as Christianity expanded into western and northern Europe. At this point the church didn't have much of a problem in borrowing from pagan practices and religions. But the date itself is not pagan in origin.

The earliest document to suggest that Christianity intentionally changed a pagan feast day to that of the birth of Christ comes from the 12th century (Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi). He wrote that Christians moved to day of Christ's birth back from January 6 to December 25th to coincide with the sol Invictus holiday and for some reason later biblical scholars ran with it and it later became popularized in the media. But more modern scholarships has shown that not to be true.

My own personal opinion: It's unclear as to when Christ was born as the Bible doesn't give us much information and it's also true that the early church didn't record celebrating the birth of Christ as a feast day up until the 4th century (though interest in figuring out the day started as early as the late 2nd century and by the late 3rd/early 4th century,the western church already settled on 25th). Today Christmas is a time to be around family and loved ones and also a day set aside by many to acknowledge the birth of the savior of the world, I believe there's no doctrine against such.
During the time of the early church, celebrating birthdays of any kind or of anyone was associated with paganism but today that is no longer the case, so those who wish to celebrate the day should be allowed to enjoy it to the fullest and for those who are not so inclined, it is also fine. I believe either way does not violate any doctrine of Christianity. Romans 14:1-10....Just my own opinion

TrollKiller:
How can I defeat this Please. Its very strong on me.

Talk to God about it... I struggled for years to quit smoking on my own but today I'm over 5yrs clean.
Prayer does really work. A simple honest prayer is always a good place to start

RolD:
Clash ot Theological titans...

Sir, Reno is not a theological Titan. Almost everything I have seen him write or say on matters of faith is usually incorrect.

stupidity:
After praying every morning, I read my bible to gain more knowledge. So I have few questions and I want people that are deep into bible study to help me out.

In the book of Genesis,

Genesis chapter 1 vs 26

“then God said let’s make man in “our” own image, according to “our” likeness”

Q. Who was God referring to as “our” when He alone was and is the only God??

Q 2. If God created man in His own image, does it mean man was once like God or should I say man was God on earth?


1 vs 27 to 29, the creation of man was narrated here.

2 vs 15 to 25, the creation of Adam and Eve was narrated here.

Q. Is the creation of Adam and Eve same as the creation of man in genesis chapter 1 vs 27 to 29?

Reason why I’m asking the question is, the first creation of man narrated in Genesis 1vs27-29 seems not to go into much details until Adam and Eve’s creation.


Genesis 2vs8

Why did God plant the tree of evil in the garden that was supposed to be heaven on earth? When He knew man has a weakness and where was God when the serpent made Eve eat from the tree of evil? Also why did God put the serpent in the Garden of Eden when He knew the serpent was evil and bound to corrupt God’s creation?


Genesis chapter 3vs11, Adam was quick to shift blame to Eve. Typical of mankind. (Still happens till date)

Again in genesis chapter 3vs22, God said “behold, the man has become one of “us” to know good and evil.

Hi.. Very interesting questions you raised here but I fear nairaland is not the right place to ask them. I do not mean there aren't people who can give good answers to your questions, as in my humble opinion, there are already some really great answers to some of your questions . It's just the way nairaland is structured, there's really not much control on how answers are given so it's easy for good answers to be crowded out by really bad ones making it hard to determine what is what and also topics can quickly go in different directions, further adding more confusion than clarity.

If you have these types of questions and would like to throw it out to people, I would suggest a forum like https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ . It's a much more controlled forum as purely opinion based answers are not allowed[posters have to link their sources if applicable or show deep knowledge of the topic in their answers]. And Also good answers are usually upvoted by the community which makes it easier to sieve through levels of answers.
Like most things,it's also not a perfect but it's a good place to see how others are parsing certain biblical text or topic. As an earlier poster has said, every information should be laid side by with the bible and if it contradict it, it should be discarded, regardless of it's sources ,popularity or upvotes.

Also if you are interested in getting a glimpse of the discussions that have been going on for centuries about certain text of the bible like some you raised above. I would suggest adding the NET BIBLE to your asernal of bible translations. It's a free online bible translation and you can also get it on the Bible app or on Logos. It's not like it's better than other translations or that it is exceptional, but what it brings to the table is, it comes with a lot of translators notes. It shows you discussions going on on certain difficult text, gives you cultural background and context on many parts of the Bible, shows you how certain words in the Bible have been historically understood and how that has changed over the centuries and why, points you to further scholarly resources etc. It's a really good translation to add to your current translation especially if you are interested in going behind the scenes of the Bible.

Finally, may I suggest getting the read scripture app(https://www.readscripture.org/), you can download it on your phone. It's a "read the Bible in year app" but what's great about it is , it gives you a 5min video overview of each book of the Bible and gives you some history about the book,it's cultural setting and context, helps connects some dots that is usually easily missed and helps you see how the book connects to the larger story of the Bible. It's quite a really nifty tool to have even if you are a seasoned biblical student. You don't really need to you use it's bible plan, you can stick to your plan but watch it's videos all at once or bit by bit. Watching it's videos would give you some insight into some of the questions you raised even if it doesn't outright answer them.

I know these are not direct answers to your questions but I hope you find them useful. And if need any further resources like book recommendations, lecture series etc, I'll be more than happy to help.

Good bless

Hi everyone. I'm need a quick survey from you guys.
Can you please comment below the kva of the generator you are currently using and also your location.
It's for a research for my organization
Thanks for helping a brother out and God bless.

MuttleyLaff:
I am not really concerned about you jamesid29. Besides, I have nothing to work out with you. It is a showdown between truth and falsehood, not a showdown between Maamin and MuttleyLaff. As I previously have said, I'll send you the "sons of God" memo the moment Maamin grows one.

Sir, no be fight na ....Anyway, it is well.

MuttleyLaff:
Of course jamesid29, of course the evidences will easily show "sons of God" aka "sons of Elohim" that appeared before God were human beings and never a chance of ice in hell were they any of the angelic hosts of heaven.

By the time I am done, you'll be mercilessly beating yourself for so long believing they were angels, the celestial being type. The ball is in Maamin court for the showdown. Lol.

I was kinda hoping you would just present your evidence and how you are parsing those passages so we can work thru it together. Im really not interested in a showdown between you and maamin

MuttleyLaff:
jamesid29, all I have to do is let the Bible say by itself what and who the sons of God were and/or are. This is nothing about theories, but is dealing with actual incontrovertible facts jamesid29 from OT and NT standpoints.

The evidences will show who the Bible, without a shadow of doubt clearly states who were or are the sons of God that appeared before the Lord, lol, suffice to say, it certainly weren't angelic hosts of heaven, lol, but without a shadow of doubt, were and are human beings
.

If you don't mind, maybe you can share those evidences and how you are parsing the disputed texts that use the words "sons of Elohim" in the OT namely Genesis 6:4, job 1:6,job 2:1 and job 38:7 ... Thanks

MuttleyLaff:
Give a time, day and date for us have this once and for all duel to death, to forever put put the nail in the coffin of your misguided belief that angels are called sons of God. C'mon Maamin step up to the plate. Dont let your side down, lol

Would be nice to know what you're basing your theory of the Seth line being the Sons of God from an old testament worldview on...

Ihedinobi3:
I certainly agree that what I think of you is of no consequence - unless it is the same as what the Bible says about you, then you should really pay attention. After all, I care little what opinions anyone has of me, unless they are resonant with the Bible.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you "are sinning because [you] regard the book of Enoch." Of course, if you treat something as God's Word when it is not, then you are committing a sin, but I hadn't even gone so far as to say that yet. In that post, I was only describing the types of people that obedient believers are supposed to avoid, even if they claim to be believers too. You talk like one of those two types, the heretic, that was why I said what I said. I'm not sure what confusion you are seeing here.

You have a problem with hearing or reading the Bible invoked? Well, I'm a pastor-teacher. The Bible is the authority I rely on, so you have no chance of hearing me defend the Lord's Flock without using the Bible to do so. If you don't want to hear appeals to the Bible, you should quit talking to me. And isn't it interesting that it bothers you that I'm "quoting Scriptures up and down" when you are the one claiming a special maturity that enables you to see Scripture everywhere? For one who is so great at seeing Scripture everywhere, shouldn't you be thrilled to have it quoted at you too?

As for studying to show myself approved as a workman who knows his job, you appear to be proof that I have and am. I don't see your rebuttals proving that I don't know what I'm talking about or what the Scriptures say.

If truth could be made whatever we want it to be, then your pronouncements and denunciations would mean something. As it is, that is not possible.

As I said, if you see life in the Book of Enoch, by all means, use it as Scripture. Don't let me stop you from doing so. But don't even pretend that those of us who believe in the Lord Jesus should be like you. You are clearly different from us, so you shouldn't be among us nor demand that we be like you. We are very different from you.

As for what spiritual maturity is, it is also a good thing that the Bible itself tells us what it is. We don't have to be deceived by you about that:

[11]And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
[12]for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
[13]until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
[14]As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
[15]but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
[16]from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Ephesians 4:11-16 NASB

[6]Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
[7]but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
[8]the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
[9]but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him."
[10]For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
[11]For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
[12]Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
[13]which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
[14]But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
[15]But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
[16]For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:6-16 NASB

That is, spiritual maturity is a matter of epignosis, that is knowledge about the Bible that is believed in the heart. It is not merely about a woolly, ethereal concept of love that has nothing to do with what the Bible says. If you love the Lord, you will obey Him. His Command? Believe in the Lord Jesus. But how can you believe what you do not know? You have to seek the Truth, study it, and then believe it. You can only do that with the help of a pastor-teacher. If you love your neighbor, you will treat them as the Lord commands. But how can you treat people as the Lord commands if you don't know what the Lord commands? Again, you need a pastor-teacher to teach you what the Lord commands. And you need to believe what he tells you, if you have tested him according to the Bible and proved that he is reliable. Then, and only then[/b], you can and must obey him[/b]. That is how the love described in the Bible works. But then, it may be different in your "other Scriptures."

There was no prophecy. I'm not a prophet. I'm a pastor-teacher. I teach the Bible. I was showing you that according to the Bible, people like you end up as apostates. If you listen, maybe you won't end up like the others. If you don't, maybe you will. Either way, it is your choice, not mine. If it were up to me, I would drag you off the path you're on kicking and screaming. But then, it's not, just as you said. It's your choice.

"Shake [my] belief?" That's a good one. Do you know the last time anything at all "shook my belief?" It has been ages. And that thing was guilt over my own sins. You have absolutely no chance in this world to even cause my faith to feel the wind. You are so transparent to me that I could never be worried that you could be right about what you say. My Faith in the Lord Jesus is very fine, thank you very much. But it certainly is interesting that you actually considered my faith in the Lord - a faith that you yourself claimed to share - should be threatened by your own actions here on this thread. In other words, you actually feel comfortable and accomplished in putting the faith of those you claim to be fellow believers with at risk? That only proves everything that I have said here about you and your kind. You are enemies of the Truth.

As for being my follower, it was only yesterday that I found out that you followed me. Obviously, that means almost nothing to me. Many people "follow" people like me in order to oppose them. I never consider a "following" to mean anything but a possibility in either direction. In John 6, nearly all the Lord's Disciples abandoned Him when they couldn't stand the Truth anymore. They didn't want to be associated with a "cannibal." And they certainly thought He was being arrogant in claiming to be the Christ. So, your attribution of emotional arguments to me here is received in the same light. You obviously have never actually listened to what I teach. If you had, you would have expected everything I have said on this thread.

As for knowing me better, that is probably good for you. At least, you can be sure where you stand with respect to what I teach. But make no mistake, I will not be changing the position I hold now, not ever. My journey to the Truth was too long and too tortuous for me to ever want to go back. So, you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for me to become like you. That will never happen. As for you, I have no ability to make anybody's choices for them. You are whoever you choose to be. While I can and do warn you to get off this dangerous path you are on, I cannot make you do so. What I can certainly do is protect other believers who listen to me from you, and, believe me, I will do that, no matter how you feel about it. As you yourself said about me, you didn't die for me. The Lord Jesus did. So, the One to Whom I owe my allegiance and obedience is the Lord Jesus, not you. He gave me my gift of pastor-teaching. He trained me in the Truth through another pastor-teacher. He is preparing me through the tests and work that He has given me to do. He is the One Who will judge me. So it is His Opinion and His Command that I concern myself with. If you threaten the spiritual safety and security of any believer for whom I have responsibility to the Lord, there will be no peace between me and you. You can be sure of that.

It is thinking such as these that stood as the basis for every christain cult over the ages. When Believers begin to so elevated themselves and their callings over others to the point that they begin to consider themselves final authorities and anyone who goes against their teachings even on matters that are really not that important is not only wrong but can also be deemed heretical and heading towards God's wrath.

That's what concerned me in some of our previous conversation before this thread. Not that I didn't think you were knowledgeable and might make a fine teacher but that you have put yourself on such a level that even if you were right 90% of the time, the 10% in which you are wrong, there won't be be anyone you consider trustworthy enough to listen to and make adjustments accordingly.

I really do hope you meet people who can help you get back to some of the fundamentals of the christain faith before you go into full time ministry.

nijabazaar:
It has stirred quite a lot of dissent, and insults traded around like strings of spaghetti....

Yeah, that and the fact the thread is steadily marching towards territories that shouldn't be treaded upon lightly is what is bothersome..

There are matters of faith we should definitely fight tooth and nail for without giving up an inch and there are definitely books that should not even be in christain conversations but historically this book is not one of them so it shouldn't be something we start trading insults about.

It is well boss..

[quote author=OkCornel1 post=83374996][/quote]Good morning sir, hope you don't mind me jumping into the conversation for a bit.
I've been following the thread for a bit and its a bit clear that everyone has strong feelings about status of the book of Enoch.
I don't believe the BoE is scripture for a couple of reasons one being, it was never accepted universally as such at any point in church history. But at the same time we know the book was highly revered and read by the early christain community and a few church fathers did allude to it as scripture or at the very least wanted to give it such a status, so I also do not believe reading the book would lead anyone down the wrong path.(except for someone who is reading it with the wrong agenda).

Based on this, I really do not think we should allow the the status of the book of Enoch to cause such a big divide, as in the grand scheme of things, its status doesn't really change or affect any of the main tenets of the christain faith or it's doctrines.

I would like to suggest probably applying what was written down in scripture by Paul the apostle in 1cor 8: 1-13 about exercising our right to do certain things but not becoming a stumbling block to those whose conscience might be affected. In essence, if so many people feel so strongly about how evil the book is here, I think its just better to let it be and not even defend the book .But when you're amongst other believers who find the book valuable or in someway are open to have just a regular conversation about it, then you can share what you know and learnt with a free mind.

Just a suggestion sir .Have a wonderful Wednesday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62CliEkRCso

[quote author=Ihedinobi3 post=83179929][/quote]It is well.

Ihedinobi3:
A man once asked the Lord Jesus to prevail upon his brother to share the inheritance with him. Your argument here would make the Lord Jesus's response out to have been insensitive and uncaring about any injustice - .

I think you should reread Luke 12:13-15 again and you would see what I pointed out and what Jesus was teaching are two different things.

If the Bible does not attend to race, neither will I. Nothing about Genesis 9 is concerned with race, so neither am I here

I think You are missing the point I was making.
Over the ages, people have used the bible as a weapon to dehumanize their fellow human being and here comes an article that tries to set some of the records straight, but just because it's not an issue you can relate with, you conclude its of no value and a waste of ink. Like I said in my previous post, if you can't empathize with the people going through racial subjugation, it would have been better to have not said anything, rather than make light of other peoples struggles.

I do not use the Bible to solve social problems

Yes, the bible is not some ethics manual or a rule book on societal problems but if you hold the position that the bible and the God of the bible are not concerned about the widows and the orphans, the poor and the marginalized, the segregated and the ones the society has left behind, then I'm not sure we are reading the same bible.

Now, since you appeal to the text (and I rejoice in such an appeal), clearly Genesis 6:4 does not say "and also after the Flood." As you yourself quoted, it only says, "and also afterwards." It is then a matter of interpretation what the frame of reference is. In this case, it is your interpretation that Moses meant after the Flood. The text says nothing of the sort. How then can you be sure that you are right? You claim to derive your certainty from when Genesis was written, but I don't see why the text doesn't say that the Nephilim were in the earth "to this day," for example, as it says in many other cases in the Bible. After all, Moses was writing Genesis about the same time that the spies were checking out Canaan

.

First off sir, I do not claim to have certainty over the interpretation of the text, as the text gives very little details and has been the subject of quite a lot of debates over the centuries. My point was, we should be cautious when taking the moral high ground as we can be guilty of the same things we point at. I was showing you how u also moved away from what the bible actually says to adding things that are purely opinions.
Secondly your statement of Moses writing Genesis at the same time the spies were checking out Canaan is not factual as no one knows when Moses penned down the Genesis account. All we have are opinions and speculations.
Finally,may I know your interpretation of when the "and also afterwards" part of the text could be referring to?

Furthermore, why then did the Lord flood the world? If it was merely for human wickedness, what was the point since human beings have never not been wicked. In fact, just a century after the Flood, the whole world was building the Tower of Babel in their bid to stamp out faith from the human race. Ham's behavior right after the Flood is proof that he was not very like his own father in righteousness, yet he was saved from the Flood. What then was the point of flooding the Earth if it was not to destroy the Nephilim

?

Again what does the text actually say?

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 6:5‭-‬9‭, ‬11‭, ‬13 ESV
There is no doubt the nephilim were part of the problem but what the text focuses on is, the wickedness of man and nowhere does it say it was mainly because of the nephilim the Lord flooded the earth. The text says it was because of the wickedness of man. Of course you are free to say the level of wickedness was enormous because of the nephilim but that's just opinions as the text doesn't say that.

As for Numbers 13:33, the Bible is a faithful record of history, but why must it be held responsible for what the people it records as saying anything actually say? I mean, why must we treat something as true when somebody is recorded as saying it in the Bible? When Satan claimed to the Lord Jesus that if He threw Himself off of the Pinnacle of the Temple that angels would catch Him, should we also assume it to be true? The spies were cowards and they did not want to go to war. They saw large people in Canaan that terrified them. All this is true. But why should we assume that they were telling the truth that the people that they saw were Nephilim when we have the story of the Flood to tell us that there were no more Nephilim after the Flood

Why should we also assume they were lying? Going that route is actually adding something to the text that cannot be backed up by scripture. Secondly where in the Bible does it say there were no more nephilim after the flood?

Thirdly in the case of our Lord Jesus, the bible clearly states that the devil came to tempt him. The definition of a temptation is:the wish to do or have something that you know you should not do or have. In this case the bible does give us context, so u can't compare Numbers 13:33 to the temptation of Jesus.

The covenant that the Lord made with Noah and his descendants also made it abundantly clear that anything that challenged human free will and attempted to cut short the full time of human testing would be dealt with most decisively by Him

There's nothing in the Lord's convenant with Noah that has to do with humanities free will and the nephilim. I hope you do not think that capital punishment was instituted because of the nephilim as that would be a very huge stretching of the text.

In light of all this, it is more than clear that the spies were lying. There were no Nephilim in Canaan because there couldn't have been Nephilim in Canaan

Again this is making alot of assumptions and extrapolating your own opinions into the text.

As for Joshua's, Caleb's, and Moses's silence on the matter, that is a lot like assuming that because I don't respond to every lie on this board, I must agree with them.

Again I brought this up as a means of asking you how u were infering from the text that the spies were lying. If you can't infer it from Moses ,Caleb or Joshua that were in the story, then from which later prophet or new testament author can you say pointed back to this passage to show that the spies were
indeed lying about seeing the nephilim. If all you can say is the spies must be lying because there's no way the nephilim strain survived ,but can't back it up scripturally, then that's basically making statements the text is not making and adding your own opinions to the text.
There's nothing wrong with having opinions and we can definitely engage others with our opinions to see if they holdup to scrutiny, but in this case, you're actually swimming against what the text actually says or can even be inferred just to hold on to idea you've already preconceived to be true.

No, the author of Numbers did not link the Anakim to Nephilim at all. Again, that is your own interpretation, and although it may be true as easily as it may be false, it is obvious too that this is merely what the spies actually said

.
I believe the bible begs to differ, except you have a bible translation that renders the text differently. I also believe you have enough bible knowledge under your belt to recognize when there's a break in the story for the insertion of the authors note, so let's not even go that route.
And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."
Numbers 13:33 ESV

Let's stop here as my aim is not to try pick apart everything wrote but I do hope you get the gist of what I was trying to convey. We are all learning and no matter how much you know, there's still a lot more out there to learn and unlearn.
As for the race part: I believe these 2 quotes embody what I was trying to convey
its more important to live the scriptures than have outstanding knowledge of the scriptures.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
1 Corinthians 13:1‭-‬8 ESV

As your last statement implied, we are all human and not without our own faults so hopefully when you also see me not to be living the scriptures, i hope u let me know.

Have a blessed Wednesday.

Ihedinobi3:
I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father naked and thought it was something funny to talk about. That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself, although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience. Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case.

These are very wrong connections to make

The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

As a follower of Jesus, this is a wrong statement to make. You might not have gone through the hardship of being treated as less than human because of the color of your skin but many brothers and sisters have had to live with this reality. How do you think someone who has been taught from a very young age that they are under a curse from the God for something they cannot change feel and what type of relationship do you think such a person would have with God. The bible teaches us that love is the greatest commandment we have from God and one of the hallmarks of love is empathy. Empathy has to do with putting yourself in others shoes and understanding their pain . The race angle of the article might not be of importance to you but it definitely is ,for a whole lot of people and if all the article was able to achieve was to lighten the load some people are carry due to false teaching, then it's of immense value. It would have been better not to say anything than to trivialize the burdens others are carrying.
Just to be clear I only speak of that one article as I have read no other article on the site and know nothing about it.

About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible.

It's always a good idea to be cautious when taking the moral high ground because we might be guilty of the same things we point at.

On this thread, you talked about how the nephilim didn't survive the flood and the spies in Numbers 13 we're just lying. That's quite a plausible opinion and quite a popular one but the problem is that's not what the text says. The actual word "nephilim" was used only twice In the entire hebrew bible and both times don't support your opinion without you adding things to the text that it doesn't have.

1)The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Genesis 6:4 ESV
Remember the Genesis account was written after the flood, so the part "and also afterwards" lends to the fact that the nephilims somehow appeared after the flood.

2)And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."
Numbers 13:33 ESV
°Note that the word here is "saw" and there is nowhere in the entire scriptures bible that says the spies were lying about what they saw out of fear and we find no passage where Moses, Joshua or Caleb called out the spies for lying about the nephilim as surely it would have been news to them if they believed the nephilim were extinct.

°Again note that the author of Numbers links the the sons of Anak to the nephilim, letting us the reader know how they came to be(This is partially where the thinking of nephilims as gaints come from and this thinking goes all the way back to second temple period and even the septuigent renders the word as giants. It is not a 21st century idea as lot of people tend to think).

So from reading the text in any language, there's no way of saying the the spies simple lied without adding words into the scriptures.

You also talked about how Noah's family was saved because of Noah's righteousness and purity of their origins but that is also adding things to the scriptures.
The bible only says was righteousness and blameless man and he found grace in the eyes of God. The bible doesn't talk about the purity of Noah's wife, his sons and his daughter in-laws. Again that's adding things to the scriptures.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
Genesis 6:8‭-‬9 ESV

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 7:1 ESV

We all have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. Enjoy the rest of your day sir.

johnydon22:
I think we are still saying the same thing.

Mutation starts not with the whole specie but with one since it is a transferable traits to offsprings it gets more and more dominant in proceeding generations.

Read the comment again:

Evolution doesn't take the collective progress of all members, it takes the mutation of only one member. A single member of an organism develops a trait that can be transferred to its offsprings, this trait may prove useful or harmful subsequently due to natural selection.

Doesn't say a single organism evolves, says Mutation

The key misunderstanding is thinking that the mutation in just one organism is enough to affect the gene pool of a population.
This only happens if this mutation is artificially selected for by external intelligence (I.e humans) or you have a population size that is very very small due to extinction, in which case there most likely won't be enough time for evolution to occur.
The one organism mutating examples are only used for illustration purposes because it's alot easier to conceptualize but in the real world that's not how it works.

Some Key points to note
°There's usually variations within a population ( I.e some individuals have blue wings rather than the regular black )
°If the variation is advantageous, individuals with this new variant are more likely to pass it on to more offsprings than their other counterparts,thereby increasing it's frequency in the gene pool of the population.
°In the course of generations,this advantageous variation becomes more common within the population. This is when you say evolution has occurred.
It's usually not as cut and dry as this but that's the basic idea. The view that evolution starts with just a single organism mutating is not correct.

Evolution doesn't take the collective progress of all members

Again sir, this is not what a population means in biology.
°Natural selection acts on populations and not individuals

johnydon22:
LOL. Listen closely "Mutation which is the key factor in evolution is random, spontaneous and mostly harmful. Evolution doesn't take the collective progress of all members, it takes the mutation of only one member."

Do you understand how evolution by natural selection works?

I actually do sir, that's why I pointed it out. You can Google around to fact check. ( Just to be clear sir, population in evolutionary biology doesn't mean every single member of a specie).

I think this is a fairly good description of evolution in the biological sense (though not without it's fault):
Evolution occurs when new gene variants (i.e alleles) are produced by random mutation, and over the course of many generations, natural selection may favor advantageous variants, causing them to become more common in the population.... .

The statement "Populations evolve, individual organism do not" is basically beaten into your head when u first begin to learn evolution by natural selection.

johnydon22:
This is the major flaw on this post, a false assumption on the evolutionary mechanism. Mutation which is the key factor in evolution is random, spontaneous and mostly harmful. Evolution doesn't take the collective progress of all members, it takes the mutation of only one member. A single member of an organism develops a trait that can be transferred to its offsprings, this trait may prove useful or harmful subsequently due to natural selection.

Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.

missjo:
Neither. They good?

Yeah, the book sheds more light in how the gospel writers read and quoted from the old testament and how they saw Jesus as the embodiment of Israel’s God. It's a good read in understanding how the hebrew scriptures and the new testament are one unified story.

You can check Ravi Zacharias on YouTube. I think him and others like him are good in answering the tough questions most of us tend to shy away from.
Remain blessed and have a wonderful week sis.

missjo:
The Ichthys website is such a great resource, There is so much to eat in there, lol. I am in love
Thank you so much.

Let me share something that may surprise you. My motivation when i first started ingesting religious texts including the Bible was purely self-serving. I was on a fault finding mission, seeking to find inconsistencies to solidify my disbelief.
Despite my Christian upbringing, a time came in my life when i began questioning my faith. I saw the bible as a book of stories with no relevance to anything and in this state, I became critical of everything religious.

But something happened. While my intention was to scrutinize the scriptures and find faults, I ended up seeing connections. Instead of inconsistencies, I found consistencies. I could see in Revelations the fulfillment of God's divine purpose in Genesis, it was like a circle, it all made sense. God telling Jeremiah how he knew him from his mother's womb and then telling Paul the same thing in Galatians over 1000 years apart, showed me that everything makes perfect sense. There was no fault to be found.
As a matter of fact i became addicted and curiously sought to connect every dot.

I know it probably seems like I'm rambling, but never mind me. Even typing this makes me excited. There is a lot to be felt, to be experienced, and to be seen, within the pages of these scriptures, so much.

Fascinating.... Ever read Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels by Richard B. Hays or heard any of Ravi Zacharias talks?

shadeyinka:
Good morning my Bro and
Thank you so much for your understanding. I'm relieved.

I still wouldn't mind if you pm me or I pm you to look at points of difference. Everyday we fine-tune our knowledge base to His glory.

Shalom

No wahala boss... I agree we fine tune our knowledge everyday so I'm also open to learn new things from u. I'll send u a pm boss.

Have a blessed day.

shadeyinka:
I'm so sorry you completely misunderstood me. I am on your side and I will never ever intentionally look down a brother in Christ.

I was just of the opinion that tintinz doesn't understand the meaning/implication of the science he is quoting.

If you strongly feel we differ on some fundamentals, I am still learning please PM me or if you want, I can PM you.

I'm sorry my brother if I conveyed a negative impression.

It is all good my oga.
I do not believe we differ on what really matters and I'm also still learning myself and I do not hold any exceptional knowledge. Matter of fact the more I learn, the more I realize the sheer amount of things I do not know.

I'm also sorry if any part of what I wrote came of as offensive.
.

nijabazaar:
If we take the Bible and all the books therein, and including the old testament, as Truth, why should i not interest in my self in the ''Óld''


@RiyardGoddess, ijust asked a clerical friend and he came up wit a long winding explanation too. i couldnt pick out a single point. At the end He said and i quote "such books might actually encourage people to believe in sorcery"

I dont buy it. There's nothing sorcery about it.

And I also just learnt that those who made the decision not to include the Book of Enoch in the Canons, was the Nicean Council. Politics is involved, obviously

Good evening boss... first off sir, the nicean council had nothing to do with with Canon. It was conveyed for a whole different purpose.

Secondly sir,it's actually not bad to read the book of Enoch in of itself.... Matter of fact, the book was read widely by early christains but it's was never considered Scripture universally by christains at any point in church history.... Basically it doesn't carry the stamp of the Holy Spirit as inspired.
The early christains usually read other writings that they considered beneficial but not scripture and some churches till date do still read some of this writings which include the book of Enoch.
It is also worth noting that it is not part of the Hebrew Canon and not part of the LXX(the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible the new testament writers used and quoted from mostly) though it was widely known amongst Jewish communities during the new testament period.
You can file the book of Enoch under "stuffs to read" but not authoritative scripture.

I found this short video online that might make it a bit clearer than I think I did
https://askdrbrown.org/library/why-isn%E2%80%99t-book-enoch-bible
And pls this only applies to the first book of Enoch

shadeyinka:
You know what!
You just used the laws of physics and logic to show how Ihedinobi3 and jamesid29 err AND I want to apply the same rule. Do NOT say, I don't know and yet you wouldn't take I don't know as an answer for a theist.

Let me slow you down and lets reason it out one by one.. Pls use the hypothesis, logic and laws freely

The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.
Would you therefore agree that
i. The gravitational singleton changed state at the Big bang because something external to it caused the change?

These a logical questions based on the laws of nature. YES or NO (With a NO answer, an explanation is required)

Mr shadeyinka, there are points in life a man should know he is going too far. One of those points is when you are willing to do whatever it takes to win regardless of the cost. As far as I can tell , the only reason u dragged I and mr Ihedinobi3 is to put us down so u can lift urself up.

That's fine , but like I told tingz, I believe u also have a bit of misunderstanding of what a singularity is and how it relates to the inflationary big bang model.

It is well sir...I could be wrong but I believe u need to relax and don't loose urself. even if u don't win the argument, God will still remain God and His resurrection for man's sins will still be valid.

tintingz:
We assume our time from the big bang, before the big bang there was a gravitational singularity(initial singularity) where the universe becomes infinite.

My argument here is that the universe can be infinite.

Enjoy yours too.

Like I said boss,I think u have a slight misunderstanding of what the concept of a singularity means... But again, it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things...

tintingz:
What again is our argument?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

.... U were saying the universe started out as a gravitational singularity, at which point it becomes infinite (with respect to time I believe u presume).... Please read the wiki page u posted again and see if that squares up with ur assumption...
Other than some wrong presumptions on ur part about the universe,I think you're mistaking the concept of infinite density with infinite time to the past.. Either way my brother, it is well.

But whichever side of the divide we are, at the end of the day ,we both can agree we don't have infinite time to live on this Earth, so I think it's probably better we send that time trying to be better humans to one another ,rather than spending it on a topic like this.

Enjoy ur day boss.

tintingz:
It's a state where the universe becomes infinite, if this is the case when was it created?

Hmmm, that's incorrect ... I think you've got ur models mixed up... Or do u mean to say when the universe was infinitely dense?

tintingz:
Yes so...,

What then is the gravitational singularity?

Could you elaborate on your question?
Are you asking if our universe actually started out as a singularity? or you just want to know what a gravitational singularity is?

tintingz:
What creation event?

A beginning when it came into existence ,around 13.7 billion yrs ago...give or take a couple hundred million yrs.

tintingz:
We have not fully understood the universe, how did you conclude it must be created?

That's the thing, we actually do know this particular universe we inhabit does have a creation event ,thus was created.

XxSabrinaxX:
It isn't authoritative. However, it is a PHYSICS forum. That was the whole point. Anyone can go there and express what he/she likes, but shouldn't act like his claims are the objective fact when the results haven't been verified yet.

Also, you do know what the word "probably" implies, right? Yep. It implies a percentage of uncertainty. Arguments have flown both ways for decades and no one has yet reached an agreed upon conclusion. Some theories require an Open universe and others a Closed universe. Choose your poison but do not pretend you have the only right answer.

As for my approach in debates, i usually prefer calm discussions but i've realized that most theists (especially on NL), when engaged in arguments, employ annoying tactics such as evasion, distortion, projection, goal-post shifting, and the one that alarms me the most: committing glaring logical fallacies and waving them off like it's nothing! Thus, forgive me if I may seem under-handed in my approach but it has been my main policy since my first day on this website that I do NOT suffer fools. Call me harsh but "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" as the saying goes.

Oh, and a wonderful day to you too

Hmmm, everything you just wrote is either wrong or missed the point, but it is well.

Enjoy the rest of your week...