Good morning folks.

Does anyone have any experience using felicity Lithium batteries; either for clients or personally?
Just trying to know if its a dependable buy.
Thanks


CC ojeysky ,Ceasar, Olopan, Valto, NiyiOmoIyunade, earthrealm, Eleojo23, Trippledots, Mctfopt, IYGEAL

ojeysky:


Got the prime from justemmanuel you can't miss that moniker within this thread. As to monitoring search for solpiplog in the thread. At the moment I use a combination of solpiplog, node-red, mqtt and emoncms

Thank you very much

ojeysky:
I just saw this, looks like it's going to be a sunny week, but men prime is a good panel. It did 8w during the night

Good evening boss. Abeg no vex for the unusual question.
Pls where did u get it prime panels from and what web application and hardware are using for your system monitoring.

Thanks for ur time boss.

Fastlinkpro:
Any invert dealer here?
Please what inverter
And how many 200 amps battery can serve these
Laptops.. phones.. fans.. bulbs and fridge

Thankd

Without knowing the actual type and rating of the appliances you listed up there, it would be hard for anyone to give you an accurate figure, but I'll try and give you an idea of what you need.

Laptop: Laptops like dell are rated around 65w

Fan: If your fan is the regular type that has its control(where you change the speed) on the body, those are usually rated between 50w- 60w... The ones with their speed control on the head are usually around 130w-150w.... If it's the regular ceiling fan, then it's around 85w.

Bulb: The regular full spiral energy saving bulb (like Akt) is around 40w and the small one is around 18w.

Fridge: Let's put your fridge around 350w. I believe yours should be less than that because most new fridges are energy efficient.

So with this info: Let's say 1laptop, 2 regular energy saving bulbs on per time,1 regular standing fan(control on the body) and 1 fridge.... Your total load per time is around 555w.

A 1.5kva inverter would be ideal for your system(a 1kva can work but it's better to go for a 1.5).

As for batteries: 4 (200ah) would give you roughly 10hours(that's if I want ur batteries to last for 2-3 yrs if not more without issues). Around 14hrs if you want to kill ur batteries in a yr plus.... Pls go for good affordable batteries and not those cheap Alaba ones, if not na every 6months u go dey change batteries.

If you go for[b] 2 (200ah)[/b] batteries, just divide the backup time by half.... (But with good energy efficiency, u can increase the hours).


Hope that helps.
It would be great if you can snap the back where the model and other info are written.

.

Eviana:



Ok, I thought I was clear with my comment sir, but I will gladly & kindly clarify a few things.
Let me see if I can sum up what you're asking and stating.
I agree that I should change the word "absolutely" to "may".
Ultimately if the person belongs to Jesus, then he/she would ultimately pray for practical wisdom.
I cannot make a decision nor force anyone to do anything.
What I know is that to people "born-again", there is given a mighty important help in the form of the Holy Spirit which speaks to one's spirit through the Word of God.
I would think that this question has been on the mind of many people the world over in the exact same position.
Salvation to a born-again believer is not dependant upon offering restitution.
I hope folks didn't interpret that from my post.
Spiritually, as long as a person has confessed to God, is repentant and strives to leave a holy life pleasing to God, then his/her salvation is sealed. He/she has accepted the gift of salvation....
That was what I tried to convey.

In this earthly realm that we, humans, live our lives in come with free-will.
Meaning we make choices.
There are laws or at least should be that govern our lives.
If a crime is committed, and a person is found guilty (assuming that it's based on untampered, unbiased evidence etc.--which much could be said about that), then the laws says that restitution should be made...be it imprisonment, house arrest, community service or even the death penalty.
Having to deal with consequences of one's actions (if genuinely born-again) has "0" to do with the pardon, forgiveness and eternal life that God has bestowed to the person.
Even if crimes committed, happened before being born-again, there should be a desire to make restitution...even at the sacrifice of one's own comfort and security. Even at the risk of death...which although may mean a born- again is no longer alive, he/she has gained eternity.
Again I stress that anyone in this predicament would need to prayerfully go to the Lord for wisdom on what to "do" or "not" do.
Christianity should be a religion of relationship......relationship with God and relationship with fellow human beings.
Relationship that causes born-agains to have empathy, love, joy that is practically expressed.
There is a hope that we, Christians have through genuine faith in the Lord, that is worth risking our lives for others to experience it...even if death is the result.
I have a thread coming soon enough on that...which will address that.
I hope that cleared up a few things.

Really well put ma'am. God bless you

Application is closed. Thank you

Kobojunkie:
1. There is no such thing as good biblical reasoning. There is simply the Word of God...evrrything else is lies snd nothing else.

2. I did not bring up anything. If you need help understanding what is written, ask. I presented a scenario based on a comment made by a particular poster. Note how this particular response is directed at the one whose comment I responded to and not meant as a general call to derail from the topic in anyway?

3. As I already made it clear, Jesus Christ never gave instructions regarding a dress code of any sort, neither did He suggest that Holiness/Perfection according to the New Covenant(which has more to do with Loving your enemies and praying for them , according to Him) has anything to do with the way a person chooses to dress or not to dress.

Okay. Thanks for your time

Kobojunkie:


1. I have told you times before that I am not here to proffer that which you believe will meet your standards. Your doctrines and rules of men mean absolutely nothing to me as Jesus Christ Himself declared them to be nothing but lies made up in the minds of men do the purpose of men. I am simply here to teach what Jesus Christ Himself taught.

Hence the classification "good biblical reasonings" after the word proffer....

2. Don't assume your delusions are mine. Lust, rape, taking advantage of the weak?
Are you high or something? The discussion is on dress code and what God's Law TRULY says or does not about such rules of men.

Again you were the one that brought it up with the other poster...

Kobojunkie:

I mean with a statement such as the one you present above, you should never be allowed to care for a sick female, am I right then?
Not because the patient is the problem but your mind there remains so caved in that the chances are high you will commit evil acts against such persons then?

Note how...clearly you are the enemy, not a child of God, in that scenario?

So based on the context of the conversation you were having with the poster, what other type of evil act against a sick female patient were you insinuating?



Lastly:

If a crime is committed then let the one who is guilty of committing such a crime be punished. Stop pretending you can off load blame in the name of God as God is against such.

To be clear, which crime are you referring to here?

Kobojunkie:
According to Jesus Christ, the fault lies with the one who is tempted and not the object of the temptation here. So I suggest you focus your energy instead on working on your mind....so it is not so easily tempted even by naked figures.

I mean with a statement such as the one you present above, you should never be allowed to care for a sick female, am I right then?
Not because the patient is the problem but your mind there remains so caved in that the chances are high you will commit evil acts against such persons then?

Note how...clearly you are the enemy, not a child of God, in that scenario?

It's quite interesting that rather than profer good biblical reasonings for why you disagree with the posters point, you would rather go the ad hominem route by bringing his integrity into question.

You are also working of the assumption that lust directly leads to rape and specially taking advantage of the weak. That's very incorrect for many reasons, one of which is that the primary drive for rape is not the sex itself but feeling of power, sadism etc.

ndbest650:

Please I'm battling with a rare genetic disorder and it's life threatening. It appears to be called familial dysautonomia. I have been seeking the face of God for his intervention. I need you and all to please assist me in prayers.

It is well with you in Jesus name...

MuttleyLaff:

[img]https://media1./images/0231ce01bd7fce51b82d143924cb3cfd/tenor.gif[/img]
The solution, other than to be doomed to live and die alone, is to faithfully, loyally, affectionately, kindly, warmly love another until death do part them

My good sir, that would not be the right way to look at it.
We all have sins(anger, sex and sexual orientation, attitude problems etc) and things(depression, sickness etc) that we are all struggling with.
Some can seem like a lifetime battle(and some actually are), but as Christians, the solution is not to give in or give into our weaknesses. We have to remember that we are never alone and we do not have a high priest that is incapable of sympathising with our weaknesses because He himself was tempted in every way just as we are and He perfectly understands what any of us is going through.
The right solution is not to focus on our weakness, but to focus our eyes on Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith. As the author of Hebrew said
" For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. Think of him who endured such opposition against himself by sinners, so that you may not grow weary in your souls and give up."

We are to lean on His strength, on His grace, on His love. And as a community also, we are to continually encourage one another, be there for one another and spur one another on in love.

Yes, sometimes we will slip and fall. But grace and mercy is always available, so we pick ourselves up and keep moving.
In the end, on this side of eternity and in the next, It's only together in Christ we find true joy, true love and true family.

I do believe, that's the right way to look at it.

Firstly it is important to emphasize that Judaism has always viewed human sacrifices as an abomination and the Bible even during a period where human sacrifice was commonplace expressly denounced the practice (Lev 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; Jer 7:31etc) and made it a capital offence

To your question sir :The story of Japhet and his daughter is one of those seemingly ambiguous and hard passages in the scriptures. it's interpretation generally falls into one of two camps
1) Japhet did sacrifice his daughter (in the history of interpretation, this used to be the majority view especially amongst early commentators)
2) Japhet didn't sacrifice his daughter but consecrated her into a life of perpetual virginity( This used to be a minority view but has increasingly become more accepted by Hebrew scholars by looking at the language of the text)

Both views can be argued for coherently and below is a brief summary of both arguments ,so you can have a general idea and work through the text.

In support of the human sacrifice theory e.g Kaiser in Hard Sayings of the Bible says:

1) People, even servants of God, do horribly things. The era of the Judges(that is, the period between the relatively faithful generation of Joshua and the period of the unified monarchy) was on of the bloodiest and corrupt period in Israel's history and there is no reason to see Jephthah as substantially different than his contemporaries. This was the period where "everyone was doing whatever is right in their eyes".

2)The sacrifice of his daughter is the most natural way to interpret the text. Burnt offering" is and always elsewhere used to denote sacrifice wholly consumed on the altar by fire.

3) The history of interpretation from early commentators support the human sacrifice view. The idea of perpetual virginity is generally not found until the Middle Ages. So for alot of early Jewish interpretation from even the times of the apostles, the human sacrifice view was the dorminant one.

4)The grammar in verses 31 beginning( " the one coming out, who comes out from". Literal translation) allows for humans coming from the house as well as animals. It's possible that Japhet wasn't too concerned about doing human sacrifice but he was only devastated that it was his daughter that came out.


Supporters of a non-death sacrifice(perpetual virginity) are Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Keil & Delitzsch in Commentary on the Old Testament, etc and they make their arguments using

1)Human sacrifice was always understood from the days of Abraham onward to be a capital offense and an abomination. It had been denounced and forbidden in Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; 18:10 and there is no evidence of Israelites offering human sacrifice until the time of the kings

2)The passages places emphasis on virginity instead death. His daughter went for two months to the mountains to bewail her virginity, not the coming loss of life.
She said to her father: ‘Do this for me, release me for two months and I will go and ‘go down’ upon the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my women companions. - Judges 11:37

It is stated in verse 39 after Jephthah had performed his "burnt offering" that "she knew not a man." Such wording would be strange and unusual if she had died but would be appropriate if she was devoted to service at the tabernacle. There are precedences for this in the Old testament (e.g Samuel) ,although there is non(atleast that I can think of) which entails perpetual virginity and celibacy.
In the instance of perpetual virginity, the tragedy of the vow would be:
a) The bloodline of Japhet is wiped out since she is his only child and daughter.
In the ancient world, continuity of bloodlines was very important. We get many glimpse of this also in the Bible (e.g: the lenght in which the other tribes went into making sure that the tribe of Benjamin were not wiped out in Judges 21).
Secondly as an outsider, Japhet bargains with the elders to not only to become commander but to also become chief of his tribe. Despite his victory, any dynastic intentions he might have had, is essentially caught off and his vow has robbed him of any future.
b) From his daughter's perspective, she has given up one of the most important thing for a woman in the ancient world. That is: The necessity of having children.
This is an extremely important part of being a woman in the ancient world and We can see how important this is even in stories in the Bible ,e.g the extreme length lot's daughters go to to get pregnant, Hannah's story, Rachel and Leah's story etc.
From an Ancient perspective, an only child consecrated to a life of perpetual virginity would have really been a tragedy.

Other arguments for non -human sacrifice
3)There is no explicit condemnation of Jephthah's act in the Bible. This would be a bit unusual for a crime of this magnitude (if it was actual human sacrifice).Jephthah continues to judge Israel for 6 more years without any condemnation within the narrative or by other Israelites after committing a capital offence is quite unusual.

4) Japhet knows Israel's history well enough to give the ammonites a rundown of how Israel came to posses the land (Judges 11:12 - 22) so it would be unsual(although not impossible) for him not to know the laws against human sacrifice in the Torah.

5) In verses 31, the Hebrew word "vav" can be translated as "or" instead of "and".
then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord ’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” - Judges 11:31
.. Basically the idea is that, if we translate "vav" as "or" , the verse changes to "shall be the Lord ’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering” , meaning whoever came out would be dedicated to God, and, only should it prove appropriate(e.g an animal), would be sacrificed.
This actually allow for some ambiguity but it might not be very convincing based on the Hebrew construct of this particular passage. As NET puts it:

Some translate “or,” suggesting that Jephthah makes a distinction between humans and animals. According to this view, if a human comes through the door, then Jephthah will commit him/her to the Lord’s service, but if an animal comes through the doors, he will offer it up as a sacrifice. However, it is far more likely that the Hebrew construction (vav [ו] + perfect) specifies how the subject will become the Lord’s, that is, by being offered up as a sacrifice. For similar constructions, where the apodosis of a conditional sentence has at least two perfects (each with vav) in sequence, see Gen 34:15–16; Exod 18:16.4


6) Japhet's daughter was considered a heroine and the women of Israel celebrated her. It is unlikely they would have done so had she volunteered for a pagan ceremony. However, most translations take lthannoth as "lament" or variations thereof. Archer says it can be taken along the lines of celebration. Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon points out that this is modern and older versions (including the Septuagint) take the 11:40 as mourn. They [BDB] also point out that the word is used positively in Judges 5:11, "let them recount the victories of YHWH." Jud 5:11 and 11:40 are the only two occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible.

As mentioned earlier, both views(human sacrifice and non human sacrifice) can be argued for coherently but it's also likely that we are missing something. The language in the passage and this type of vow is unusual and unique so it's possible that there was a practice in that time period we are missing that would shed more light on the passage.

Either way, the theological messaging doesn't change much. Don't be rash to make vows, let your Yes be simply Yes and let your No be simply No. The spirit of God already rested on Japhet, he didn't need to make any vows, just the same way we as Christians are already sons and daughters of God, so we need not any vows or great offerings to incur God's grace and favor. He would not give us stones when we ask for bread or snake when we ask for fish.

PS: A bulk of my summary of the two views comes from hermeneutics.stackexchange but expanded and edited by me. You can check on the resources above for a fuller understanding on the arguments of both views

Hope this helps

MuttleyLaff:
Brother with all due respect, I make no apology for making that comment. I clearly said what you quoted me saying and even said quite a lot more than that sir.

It's all good bro

I clearly see you making your focus on much ado about nothing. My point remains that the Hebrew phrase "muth tamuth" means "to die" where "to" in the "to die" phrase is expressing a direction of death and/or to draw ones last breath (e.g. as like Shimei's case in 1 Kings 2:36-37)

You seem to agree with Petra1 that Genesis 2:17 is emphatically and exclusively speaking of spiritual death and no more death after it. Tut-tut-tut.

1 Kings 2:36-37, to a certain degree, is a mirror image of Genesis 2:17, but notice my context is king cautionary "watch it" plea. Tbh, I think you're better off commenting on "Where Lies The Serpents Deception? Genesis 3" and shedding illuminating light on the question for us all learn from you instead of focusing on my lowly humble submission and saying I have an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

I sincerely really did mean it

It's all good bro...
Wishing you a wonderful New year also

petra1:


This is excellent

Thank you sir. Happy New year to you boss

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

Brother I do get your point, but what you dont want to realise is that you are labouring a moot point.

Where did you read or see me, not agreeing to a spiritual death bro, hmm? Did I not type from the onset that, they died a spiritual death with physical death catching up, like 930 years in Adam's case, hmm? Its you reading more into me saying ""You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" and revved up to make a meal out of it. You dont know what my understanding of infinitive absolute is because I never gave explanations about it. All I did was give advice to become familiar with it, lmso.

You clearly said, "muth tamuth" indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying or sense of gradual or slow death starting). That is an incorrect understanding of the hebrew grammar.

Here, lets cut to the chase. I would love to see your sincere, honest and truthful responses to the below easy peasy lemon squeezy innocent, harmless, straightforward simple three questions:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then.

It seems you don't still get the point being made if you're still asking these questions .. But It is well bro.

Happy New year to you bro, your family and all things that's generally yours. May you excel, go above and beyond the limits of your God given grace, power, gift(s), strength and potential(s)

we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

Thanks bro..

MuttleyLaff:
"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

I defo did get what your post was about, lmso. KMFT. You need to, in thorough manner slowly re-read Dr. Terry Mortenson's article instead of jumping on thread, feet first and throwing wild crazy punches.

You must be feigning shortsightedness, so that you wouldnt have to acknowledge how Dr. Terry Mortenson brought his article to an end with the below excerpt

"So, from all this we conclude that, the construction “dying you shall die” and beyôm in Genesis 2:17 do not require us, to conclude that God was warning that, “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.” "

Like I said earlier, the article you are pointing to doesn't agree with your understanding of infinitive absolute when used as an adverb to make emphasis(repetition of words twice).
Here are the statements I'm interacting with:

MuttleyLaff:
Yes, in the original text, when God said, "thou shall surely die", the remark has the meaning translated as, you will die a slow death, you definitely will begin the process of deterioration.

MuttleyLaff:

The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, often as equally seen above, is usually translated as "surely die" or literally, as "you will certainly die" when actually, in a Hebraic manner of speaking, it correctly, indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying.

"Muth, muth," in fact, conveys a meaning of and gives, an awareness of entered death (i.e. have a sense of gradual or slow death starting), hence why and how, it is, we die by the second, we are in fact, slowly dying.

MuttleyLaff:

The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, when translated from meaning "to die", says "for in the day that you eat of it, you will begin to die" and that is exactly what happened, in that A&E surely did begin to die.

There's nothing in the verse nor chapter that put forward a consideration of spiritual death.

All this are incorrect statements because that is not what the Hebrew grammar is conveying and that's definitely not what the article you are linking to is saying.
Like I said in my previous post, I am not interacting with your theological conversation. If you don't agree with the fact that they died spiritually that day, that's fine; You just have to come up with the type of death that happened that day(cos obviously they didn't drop dead physically). Or you can alternatively try to exegete that "beyôm" doesn't necessarily mean " in that day" literally and that it could be taken as anyday in the future in which God decides. That's another way of going about it(And that's the way your article went, even though I do not find his arguments convincing as there were a few unexplained positions taken e.g;He takes "beyôm" literally for the spiritual death but not literally for the physical death, but does not give any real reason why the switch up.... But again that's a different conversation & not the one we are having).

What you cannot do though is use the Hebrew grammar in the text to say they entered into a "state of dying", or a state of slow/gradual death, or that it means they will die a slow death(begin the process of deterioration).
That's not what "muth tamuth" means and that's not how infinitive absolutes in that form functions boss.
"Muth tamuth" just means,the certainty of their death is assured but as I pointed out above, you can play around with the "in that day(beyôm)" part and make the claim that it's not meant to be taking literally and God even though He has already decreed the certainty of their death, would in his sovereignty decide which day He would take their life.
But as I also said earlier though, personally I don't buy that line of argument and I believe there are better arguments that are more faithful to the text and explain better how physical death entered into the world. But in all fairness,its also not a bad argument.

MuttleyLaff:
"You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" is what I typed. There is no plural there because all I was doing was advising Petra1 to become familiar with "Hebrew infinitive absolute" grammar. That's all. Now how you managed to split this up into "conflating different concepts" is pitiably laughable.

And that's what I was bringing to your attention. Not that you were totally wrong with your understanding but that You were conflating the different functions of infinitive absolute. A) Infinitive Absolute used to express certainty of a verbal action ,when paired with a finite verb of the same root(i.e same word repetition but one functioning as an adverb as a way of laying emphasis on the certainty of an action/word)
B) Infinitive absolute used to express progression or continuance of verbal action, when used with the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)".

MuttleyLaff:

Seeing that you tried commenting on Genesis 2:16-17 and 1 Kings 2:36-37 why dont you tell:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then. Smh sigh.

I believe you are not still getting my point,but It's fine bro.
I think I also need to work on my art of rhetoric(part of vision 2021 lol).

Happy New year bro. And may we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://media./images/f879ac0258098623c7d587d6cd057b4f/tenor.gif[/img]
Some just have eyes but don't see

When was the intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb then? Did it end with spiritual death alone, hmm?

Did death stop with spiritual death or physical death, in Adam's case, did some 930 years catching up, in order to make Genesis 2:17's prophecy be fulfilled and complete?

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."
- Genesis 2:16-17

"³⁶Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him,
“Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere.
³⁷For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron,
know for certain you shall surely die; your blood shall be on your own head.”
- 1 Kings 2:36-37,

Instead of you unashamedly proof texting with Genesis 37:33, why didnt you attempt making a point with using 1 Kings 2:36-37, lmso?. After all 1 Kings 2:36-37 is a mirror of Genesis 2:17, but of course, you would have dug yourself into a hole if you did because as you ought to know, context is king, lmso. Smh sigh.

Probably you didn't get what my post was about.
My post was about how the Hebrew grammar works because you were conflating different concepts,which inevitable skewed your interpretation of the text. I wasn't actually wading much into the theological conversation.

Infinitive absolute is a very flexible non-finite verbal form and it can function as many different things (an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, a noun etc) and all this different forms convey different meanings in the text it is used.
When it is paired with a finite verb of the same root(repetition), it functions as an adverb to lay emphasis on a word or express certainty of verbal action. This is a common usage in the OT and my usage of Gen 37:33 was to show one example of its usage and not to make a theological connection.
As you noted, 1kings 2:37 is another example:
For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
Basically during Solomon's consolidation of power, Shimei's life was spared because of the oath David made to him but there was one condition; He is confined to Jerusalem. If he dares go out of Jerusalem and crosses the brook Kidron, without a doubt, he would be killed and his blood would be on his own hands not on Solomon's. That was what eventually happened. He left Jerusalem, he was caught and was executed.
Here again, dying you would die was making emphasis to express the certainty of an action. If he was caught outside of Jerusalem, he would be executed without a doubt.

Another example would be Gen 2:16: "from-every tree-of the garden eating you may eat". Translated as And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden - ESV; Other modern translations use "freely" here for stylistic reasons and the way English works, but the concept and rendering is the same.
There are many more examples of this way of laying emphasis or expressing certainty in the Hebrew Bible.
You can easily


As for the link you posted. I think you should read it fully to understand the point the man was trying to make. He was expressing two connected thoughts..
His first point is that the "dying you shall die" is used to convey the certainty of their death because thats how the
Hebrew construct work. First he posit that the certainty occured as a spiritual death(separation from God) immediately they eat the fruit as petra1 posited and physical death came later as a result of this.
His point was that we shouldn't take " beyôm (in that very day)" to mean a literal 24hrs day because " beyôm (בְּיוֹם)" can mean an extended period of time. he sighted other passages where the phrase "beyôm " didn't mean a 24hr period. So he is using two concepts to make his point.

Like almost all theologians or scholars, he agrees that the certainty of spiritual death happened the day they earth the fruit. He is definitely not arguing that an infinitive absolute verb form functioning as an emphasis means any other thing than laying emphasis.
This is thean extract from the beginning of the article

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. [/b]The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context.”2 [b]Clearly in the context of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken.

Then he goes on to argue that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin also but he tries to make the argument that the certainty of the physical death was not time bound and he uses the phrase beyôm to tie it together.
In this part, He is interacting with the Young earth , old earth debate of whether there was already physical death before humanity's sin. If you are an old earth creationist, you have to agree that there was already physical death on earth before Adam's sin but if you are an young earth creationist, physical death on earth was as a result of Adam's sin.
Maybe you should try reading the article fully to try understanding what arguments are really being made.

Personally, I don't really buy his arguments, as I believe other people have been able to tie together this tension of where the origin of physical death starts alot better and that is more faithful to the text.
But like I said, I am not really interacting with the theological conversation but just bringing your attention to your misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar.

In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). [b]This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. --- This is a direct quotation from the link you posted and how the article author himself defines how an infinitive absolute verb form paired with a finite verb form of the same root function.

Again pls read the article in full so you don't misrepresent what the author is conveying.

MuttleyLaff:
"Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it.
As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned."
- Romans 5:12

"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

Maybe you missed that I crossed out "very suddenly" in your post. You are parking in ordinarily "muth" when the verse focused on "muth muth" Besides, "very suddenly. . ." in that Strong's Concordance excerpt, has a prepended "X" to it. The "X" means, "very suddenly. . ." when used or taken into consideration, multiples the original meaning of the word, it now is trying to associate with.



You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct

The scripture clearly states that through one man death came into the world. From reading Romans 5:12 & 1 Corinthians 15:21, what death do you think Genesis 2:17 is talking of and that true to form, did so happen to man?

I believe you are conflating two different concepts:
1) An Infinitive absolute verb form paired together with the finite verb of the same root word as a way of expressing the certainty of an action (That is: repeating the same root word twice with one of them being an infinitive absolute inorder to lay emphasis).

2) Infinitive construct used with certain prepositions like "ke(כְּ/as)" to denote the commencement of an action or use the infinitive absolute of the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)" to convey a sense of continuance of the action of the main verb.

This two concepts are different and convey different meanings.

Basically when a word is repeated twice with one being in an infinitive absolute verb form and the other,a finite verb form, the infinitive absolute acts as an adverb in expressing intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb. Hence in most cases, translation would use words like "surely", "definitely", "certainly", "without doubt" etc to try an convey what the text is saying.

E.g .
Gen 37:33 "Joseph has surely(or without doubt) been torn to pieces" ( here we have the word taraph(to tear) repeated twice "taroph toraph". The infinitive absolute verb form followed by the finite verb form to convey the conviction in Jacobs mind that without a doubt, Joseph has been torn to pieces.

Same concept is conveyed in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated twice in the form of "dying" and die "moth tamuth" and is translated as "surely die" to convey the certainty that in the very day they eat of the fruit, they will surely die(not that they would be in a state of dying).

The link you posted from answersingenesis also agrees with petra1 that in that very day, Adam and Eve died( spiritually).


A popular example of the other usage(2) in my write-up is Judges 14:9, where you have the infinitive absolute "halowk(going)" used with the verb "akal(to eat) to express a continuing action of eating.
"He took some of it in his hands and went going and-eating".
Translated as: "He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went".

femi4:
The account of Luke and prov 31 are different

Prov 31 refers to a MARRIED woman with husband and kids

Luke stated emphatically that Mary was HIGHLY FAVOURED.

It's there in black and White. The first statement of angel Gabriel reads YOU ARE HIGHLY FAVOURED.

I don't know why we love to link scriptures together without understanding

My bad sir. My question was to Acehart and not you boss.

I just used your post as a reply to his question since i also found it a sufficient answer. So rather than saying the same thing you've already said, I just used yours as a reply

My follow up question was to him

Acehart:
Revelation 2:17 To him who overcomes (conquers), I will give to eat of the manna that is hidden, and I will give him a white stone with a new name engraved on the stone.

I was caught between pasting the text above and the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard; but I had to stick with the verse above because of its length. However, I hope to delve into the parable as I go along (maybe it wouldn’t be necessary).

Our race was set forth by our faith in Christ, as the scriptures says, ”For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God” ; our race was sustained by the power of the Spirit as the scripture says: we are “protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”. So, at what point does our input count when the scriptures says: run [your race] that you may lay hold [of the prize] and make it yours? If we saved by favor unlabored for, is the prize by favor and effort induced?

Maybe you should read the rest of my post in its entirety sir:

jamesid29:

The point I was trying to make is this:
Were the people God specifically partnered with sinless or better than the rest of humanity and that's why he chose them? No. As the scriptures say
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
-Romans 3:23‭-‬24 NASB
Did these people also get some things right and record great acts of faith in the one who is faithful? Yes they did and the book Hebrews even has a hall of fame for them.
Today, we are all equally called to be part of this long list of God's partners as we put our trust in God just as those who have gone ahead of us did. It's not because we are inherently better than anyone else, but out of God's immense love for humanity, He has chosen to be faithful to humans that are usually not faithful to him in return "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". And by His grace we have made a response of faith in return by putting our trust in the promise of the cross.

jamesid29:

Personally, I don't really use the word "unmerited favour" as It's one of those words that have been over Christianised over the years and can give modern readers a different mental picture. A better way of understanding the motif is to think of it as "God is always way more generous than people deserve".

Acehart: Proverbs 31:1 The words of King Lemuel, the oracle which his mother taught him.

I think a previous poster has given a good answer to what I think you are trying to drive at

femi4:
:
Proverbs 31 referred to a Family woman with husband and kids

So we are both on the same line of thought, here's Proverbs 31 in it's entirety.

31: The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him:

2 What are you doing, my son?
What are you doing, son of my womb?
What are you doing, son of my vows?
3 Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to take strong drink,
5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed
and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.

10 An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself[e] with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.

The part we are most interested in starts from verse 10 so I put a break to show the shift in the poem

My question is this sir
On what basis are you making the intertextuality (hyperlink) between this poem and Luke's account of the gospel?

Acehart:
Thank you for your kind words.

You are welcome boss.

Thanks for your exposition. One thing is clear: All charitoō is given by God. The use of it to mean “grace” or “unmerited favor” is the perspective you have taken. My use of the word is taken from its etymology “charis“, a word that shows that the favored one is more like a child, friend or faithful steward. With charitoō, the favored one is more or less one who didn’t do anything special to be favored e.g a pardoned sinner.

Not all charitoō is given by God( humans give favor to other humans) and not all charitoō is unmerited ( eg Joseph found favour in the eyes of Potiphar). The choice of “grace” is not just a perspective i have taken, it's part of the consistent theme of the Bible, atleast when it comes to God and His dealings with humanity.( Personally, I don't really use the word "unmerited favour" as It's one of those words that have been over Christianised over the years and can give modern readers a different mental picture. A better way of understanding the motif is to think of it as "God is always way more generous than people deserve". Simply "favor" or "grace" is more of a better translation).
As I mentioned in my earlier post the word charitoō though used only twice in the NT, it's Hebrew equivalent ḥên is used quite alot in the old testament and also the exact statement "to find favour in the eyes of someone" is a standard Hebrew saying, so it's a word and concept that is well accounted for and we'll understood.
The root word "charis" itself is also usually translated as grace, kindness, loving-kindness etc. It also says nothing about the character of the person it's being bestowed upon if no other information is given but only the attitude of the person doing the bestowing.

Just a quick aside: Even though in this case the root word and it's derivative are pretty similar in meaning, we have to be careful in using the etymology of a word to determine its current definition. A definition tells us what a word means and how it's used in our own time or the time period we are looking at. An etymology tells us where a word came from (often, but not always, from another language) and what it used to mean.
It's not always a one to one correspondence. Eg the word slogan comes from scotish slogorne meaning "battle cry" or gorilla which comes from the Greek Górillai which apparently used to describe "females of a hairy tribe in Africa".
Just wanted to point that out as it's something we all have to be careful about when doing word studies.

With Abraham, we see God say: for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. The favor (Charis) towards Abraham was because he acted to God’s delight -he obeyed God’s voice.

The promise of God to Abraham was given and repeated a few times long before there was even a child Issac to sacrifice,sir. And as I mentioned in my previous post
"Mary is part of a long line of humans who God partners with and who, when they got things right(that is, placing their trust in the one who is trustworthy) ,were instrumental in bringing about God's plan."
Abraham also got some things right but also got some things very wrong along the way and even almost jeopardized the promise (the story of Hagar).

The point I was trying to make is this:
Were the people God specifically partnered with sinless or better than the rest of humanity and that's why he chose them? No. As the scriptures say
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
-Romans 3:23‭-‬24 NASB
Did these people also get some things right and record great acts of faith in the one who is faithful? Yes they did and the book Hebrews even has a hall of fame for them.
Today, we are all equally called to be part of this long list of God's partners as we put our trust in God just as those who have gone ahead of us did. It's not because we are inherently better than anyone else, but out of God's immense love for humanity, He has chosen to be faithful to humans that are usually not faithful to him in return "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". And by His grace we have made a response of faith in return by putting our trust in the promise of the cross.

“There are many virtuous and capable women in the world, but you surpass them all!” (Prov.31:29)

This verse is talking about a husband's praise to his wife sir(Prov 31:28).

My good sir, I'm not trying to tear down your write-up as I largely agree with a number of things you said. Just wanted to point out a thing or two in your methodology and conclusions.

For some weird reason I keep getting banned on nairaland, so I might not be able to reply back

Good write up boss and Merry Christmas to you and yours also.

I'll just like to make a quick note on a thing or two

Acehart:


We were told that Mary, the virgin mother, was favored. The word “favor“, charitoō (in Greek), means: specially honor due to one’s character, manner or act as a result of divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in one’s life. It is a mouthful; in simple terms, Mary was not a sinner; her manner of life was pleasing to God. The angel said to her: “Blessed are you among women”; Mary was the most righteous among all women that walked on the face of the earth.

The word recorded in Luke 1:28 charitoō meaning Favour as you stated(also is translated as grace depending on context like in Ephesians 1:6), is a description of a person's attitude and actions toward the one so labeled(in this case, God's attitude towards the recipient of the message). On its own, it says nothing about the character or attitude of the person being favoured.
Favour can be earned but more often than not, the concept of favour is that the person being favoured has a soft spot with the person bestowing it and usually has done nothing inherently to gain it(eg a man showing favour to a fellow kinsman).
The act of showing favour speaks purely of the character and attitude of the one who is bestowing it. This is often the case atleast in the Bible when it pertains to God and humans (God constantly showing favour/grace to undeserving humans). You can do a word study of ḥên(old testament) and God.
This is more evident in the only other place the word charitoō is used in the entire NT.
"to the praise of the glory of His grace(charitos), which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." - Ephesians 1:6 NASB...
Most English translations also have freely bestowed or given except for KJV and ESV that render it a bit differently. But regardless of which translation chosen, the idea is the same. The charitoō is bestowed purely based on God's will.

This tracks with God's character and his attitude towards humans throughout the entire Bible. All humans are on a path that ultimately leads to death and the weird part is, that's the path we want to be on. But God out of his gracious love, partners with certain people throughout history to bring about His ultimate will; which is "saving humanity from the path it's one". It's not that these partners are inherently good or more deserving than the rest of humanity; matter of fact, the biblical stories consistently make it clear that all the people God partners with all have deep moral failings like all humans do. It's purely based on God's own graciousness to continue working with flawed humans to bring about His ultimate will.."the Cross".
Mary is part of a long line of humans who God partners with and who when they got things right, were instrumental in bringing about God's plan.

Mary (and actually Joseph too) no doubt were pious Jews like many Jews in the 1st century(the 1st and the a couple of centuries before it, was a hot bedrock of piousness and heightened awareness for the coming the Messiah and God coming back to the temple to become king).
Why God chose Mary is not given but we can always trust that God knows what He is doing .What we do know is that, regardless of any human failings Mary had(all Humans have moral failings), when giving the opportunity to trust God, she got it right and did trust Him.
Even Moses and Gideon who took a bit of convincing eventually stepped up.

There's nothing in the NT that says or alludes to the statement that "Mary was the most righteous among all women that walked on the face of the earth".
The idea that there was something inherently different about Mary started out around the early middle ages and became part church tradition(or today, Catholic tradition). We do not even find this in the earliest Christian writings outside of the NT. The shift to Mary being pure, immaculate conception etc began from writings sometime around the 4th AD.


Merry Christmas once again

Janosky:
* Galatians 4:8-11 (Genesis 40:20 & Matthew 14:6)

8
Before you Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist.
9
So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?
10
You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.
11
I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing."

* Kumuyi & Olukoya no tell una say Christmas na idolatry ?

The thing wey JWs done already know tay tayy !!!!

I think you misunderstand what the passage is about sir. The book of Galatians in general was a polemic against the Judaizers (Those who tried to make it mandatory for gentile converts to Christianity to observe the mosaic laws). The passage here is referring to observance of Jewish Sabbath and other feast days...(basically trying to be justified by the law).
It has nothing to do with Christmas or birthdays celebrations in general sir.

There's no law for or against celebrating Christmas or any other birthday. If someone chooses to celebrate it, that's fine. If another person chooses not to, that's also equally ok.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14: 5-6
(The entire chapter is talking about mutual forbearance in things like this)

Janosky:

Fraud na Fraud.
No Hebrew or Jew accepts the jargon the Original Poster typed there.

Na wash !

Actually sir, Jews did believe that God is more complex than we would like to think and they did believe in atleast two powers in heaven but still one God up untill sometime around the second century AD thereabout.
We know this by looking at writings that were floating around during the intertestament period and even the Jewish Targums(Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible).These writings have given us a glimpse into the Jewish mindset during this period and what they believed. The idea of a plurality within the Personhood of God (Yahweh but at the same time also distinct from Yahweh) is not a Christian invention.
Ofcourse none of this writings have a fully developed theology on the complexity of the Personhood of God like the New testament authors but we can begin to see the ground work from which the New testament springboards from.

A good book to read that traces early rabbinic literature reflecting on the Hebrew Bible on the complexity of the Divine in ancient Judaism and it's widespread believe in the first century is "Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal(Jewish scholar and professor of Religion and Jewish studies)".
Another book that might interest you on the topic is
"The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel by Benjamin D. Sommer(Jewish scholar and professor of Ancient Semitic Languages)". This one mainly traces the concept from the ancient Near Eastern perception of divinity and it's intersection with ancient Israelite understanding. I would like to add that if you don't have a bit of background in Ancient Near Eastern religions, higher criticism(& its flaws) and the nature of inspiration, this book might shake you a bit(maybe not, I don't know) but as long as you hold on to Christ, I believe you would be fine.

There are many other works by Christian and Jewish scholars that have traced this history but I would recommend this two for a start because they are written from a purely ancient Jewish perspective, are a bit accessible to read for both Christians & Jews and are not in anyway biased towards the Christian faith as they are both written by adherents of Judaism(Sommer even argues a bit against it) .

The question in the first century wouldn't have been, " how can this man be God, when there's only one God in heaven?" ; It would more have been "Can this man , the son of a carpenter that we all know from his childhood truly be the God of Israel? Could he really be the physical embodiment of Yahweh?".
That would have been the question (atleast by some Jews, because contrary to popular belief, just like Christianity with its different sects and denominations there wasn't just one strand of Judaism. A few we know; eg the Pharisees, Sadducee, the Essene, the zealots etc, each with a couple of doctrinal differences and beliefs but held together by faith in Yahweh and the authority of the scriptures; not everyone believed the same thing on every issue).

whitelotus:

Read about optimistic nihilism and cure your ignorance.

Actually sir, optimistic nihilism is not a philosophical term and it's not a position within nihilism. It's a term that is very new(post 2017 I believe) and it's something that was coined by and only used by laymen internet bloggers(a very unreliable source of information I might add). It's not a term you would find used in any academic paper, used by any real philosopher or taught as a position in nihilism by any reputable body within philosophy (if you have any peer reviewed paper to the contrary, I would be more than happy to take a look at it).

The reason why you do not see any real paper or real philosopher talking about optimistic nihilism is because even the term alone is an oxymoron.
Nihilism though a bit of a complex concept can essentially be boiled down to the:
"Philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."
In its most basic form "everything is meaningless"

There are many schools of thought within nihilism like moral, mereological Nihilism, passive/active nihilism but optimistic nihilism is not one of them. It's just something some people on the internet made-up as an outlet to make nihilism more palatable to themselves and others who do not understand nihilism at all just latched unto it without realising what they are latching unto.

FatherOFJesus2:
First stop trying to make a point from the “evolution can happen with just mutation” no one is disputing that.

You just keep repeating yourself.

, It is well sir...�(this was meant to be an handshake emoji... Nairaland and it's 1980's programming)
Oh and I never said “evolution can happen with just mutation” . That would be erroneous. And when I say evolution, I mean micro-evolution. As for macro evolution, that's aw whole different conversation.

Maybe some other time though... Peace

FatherOFJesus2:
correct.
But that’s in some microorganisms and other organisms that reproduce asexually. For as long as those organisms store genetic materials in form of chromosomes and it’s by sexual reproduction, recombination will happen.

I think you are conflating two concepts sir.
Genetic recombination is by default an intrinsic part of sexual reproduction for biological organism on earth but it in itself is not an intrinsic necessity for evolution as long as mutation is a possibility. If you remove genetic recombination from the equation (let's say there's an alien population that each descent carries the exact same gene copies from the parents), as long as mutation is possible, evolution can still occur. The difference is that the rate and by extension adaptation would be alot slower than in a population in which recombination occurs. But as long as mutation at the genetic level is a possibility, evolution is a possibility.

FatherOFJesus2:
well, I apologize. That must have been a mistake.

But I know recombination is the reason why we don’t look like our sibling.
My mistake

It's all good sir. Enjoy the rest of your day

FatherOFJesus2:
As a matter of fact, recombinations and heritable mutations are the key facto for variation.

Without those two, evolution wouldn’t be possible. Without them, we won’t be here debating today.

Hope you now get what I was driving at? Just that they other guy was too slow to figure it

Actually sir evolution can still occur in a population without genetic recombination, as long as mutation is possible.