₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Bélla3]AM GOOD O. HOPE YOU'RE GOOD.[/quote]Sister we thank God oh. Make we no derail thread further...
@'skeeto, forgot earlier...much appreciated sir.

Shoot...me self I can copy and paste...

Supposed "101 contradictions" refuted point for point -

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-, and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.
Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:, or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.
Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.
In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.
Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.

(Archer 1982:186-188)



2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author's intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab's report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word 'is hayil, which is translated as "mighty men", or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the reserves, but not yet involved in field combat. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term 'is hayil to describe them.

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)



3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David's Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)



4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, and misunderstood the wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shell seven years of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David's earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God's third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)



5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father's death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.

(Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts)

(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)



6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24: or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.

Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count.

(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)



7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:, or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.



8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23: or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)?

(Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author's intent)

It is quite possible that both authors may have described two different incidents, though by the same man, or one author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full.

(Light of Life II 1992:187)



9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)?

(Category: didn't read the entire text)

This is not really a problem. Shabbir Ally should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David's victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first moved from baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.

Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later) and another presenting the history in a different way. In both cases the timing of events is the same.

The same could be said of the Qur'an. In Sura 2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then God's mercy is shown to the Israelites, followed by Pharaoh's drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses have to do with Jesus, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with Adam's fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the Qur'an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before criticizing what they deem to be an error in the Bible.

(Light of Life II 1992:176)



10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of 'clean' animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)?

(Category: misquoted the text)

This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6th chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any 'clean' animals in its figure, while the 7th chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of 'clean' animals and 2 pairs of every kind of 'unclean' animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question itself.

Shabbir attempts to back his argument by mentioning that verses 8 and 9 of chapter 7 prove that only two pairs went into the ark. However, these verses say nothing about two pairs entering the ark. They simply say that it was pairs of clean and unclean animals or birds and creatures which entered the ark.

The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.

(Archer 1982:81-82)

I will stop at #10 for the sake of the thread crashing...interested? see the rest: http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-contradictions-refuted.htm

^should I unhide it so you can remember? you know what you said and it was caustic. This is not the first, second or third time you've posted brash comments on an otherwise innocuous thread. In other sections you would've been banned multiple times. This is my last warning to you.

[quote author=Bélla3]:p
THANK YOU JESOUL[/quote]Wassup girl!

You can comment respectfully esp mr666 without calling other people dogs...please air your comments without being caustic.

^lol. Abi oh...

[quote author=agi-tuedor]Ok... The reason I asked was that there isn't any PM in my email.[/quote]^yup, that would be this part...

JeSoul: I must also add that the system has a few bugs and sometimes doesn't work properly. Cheers.

We get complaints about this every now and then. Please ignore and dismiss the alert. Cheers.

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Who wrote the book of Job and how did the writer know what was going on in heaven as if he/she were there?[/quote]No one truly knows. There is speculation it was either Moses or Elihu.

Moses because God gave him relevation of the creation story - so perhaps God revealed this to him too?
or Elihu because he narrates the story (the discourse part) from a first-person perspective

one day we will get to ask God these questions. I personally am looking forward to it .

from:https://www.nairaland.com/1141847/let-us-worship-sun/1#13880328

[quote author=agi-tuedor]Dear Moderator, I don't understand what is mean't by Nairaland PM.... The message is displaying to me.[/quote]Posters can PM (private message) another poster using the NL message system. This will display in big red text on top of the page that you have a new message. Go to the email you use for NL to retrieve the message.

I must also add that the system has a few bugs and sometimes doesn't work properly. Cheers.

[quote author=agi-tuedor]Dear Moderator, I don't understand what is mean't by Nairaland PM.... The message is displaying to me.[/quote]Hi agi-tuedor, pls meet me here on the mod question/comment thread https://www.nairaland.com/505782/questions-comments-complaints-talk-moderators/58#13880308

wiegraf: Will try. You do a decent job, thanks. Kudos

Appreciated sir. Appreciated.

Goshen360: Okay my dearest sister JeSoul,

Thanks for giving that third shot question. I do have the NLT newest Chronological Study Bible with many other chronological study Bible and I can agree with the answer given from the article you posted. Chronological order most times have helped me in my studies of God's word.

Brother Goshen
I actually think the 'chronological' answer is not very strong. The "at once" phrase is what I believe makes the answer weak. Or perhaps it may have to do with translation issues?

I find the third answer the most credible - that in Matthew the tree began to wither "at once" and in the account in Mark they note in the morning that it had withered completely.

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Thanks @Jesoul and Goshen360. It's a bit clearer to me now.
Can I ask one more question?[/quote]Ask away sir. And may God give us the grace to properly divide His word.

Hi brother Godspikin (nice handle )

If you search there have been several threads on the issue of betting or gambling (whether sports, casinos, lottery etc etc). See the link/quote below. That is my belief on the matter.

http://www.gotquestions.org/gambling-sin.html

"Is gambling a sin? What does the Bible say about gambling?"

Answer: The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling, betting, or the lottery. The Bible does warn us, however, to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture also encourages us to stay away from attempts to “get rich quick” (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10). Gambling most definitely is focused on the love of money and undeniably tempts people with the promise of quick and easy riches.

What is wrong with gambling? Gambling is a difficult issue because if it is done in moderation and only on occasion, it is a waste of money, but it is not necessarily evil. People waste money on all sorts of activities. Gambling is no more or less of a waste of money than seeing a movie (in many cases), eating an unnecessarily expensive meal, or purchasing a worthless item. At the same time, the fact that money is wasted on other things does not justify gambling. Money should not be wasted. Excess money should be saved for future needs or given to the Lord's work, not gambled away.

While the Bible does not explicitly mention gambling, it does mention events of “luck” or “chance.” As an example, casting lots is used in Leviticus to choose between the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat. Joshua cast lots to determine the allotment of land to the various tribes. Nehemiah cast lots to determine who would live inside the walls of Jerusalem. The apostles cast lots to determine the replacement for Judas. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”

What would the Bible say about casinos and lotteries? Casinos use all sorts of marketing schemes to entice gamblers to risk as much money as possible. They often offer inexpensive or even free alcohol, which encourages drunkenness, and thereby a decreased ability to make wise decisions. Everything in a casino is perfectly rigged for taking money in large sums and giving nothing in return, except for fleeting and empty pleasures. Lotteries attempt to portray themselves as a way to fund education and/or social programs. However, studies show that lottery participants are usually those who can least afford to be spending money on lottery tickets. The allure of “getting rich quick” is too great a temptation to resist for those who are desperate. The chances of winning are infinitesimal, which results in many peoples’ lives being ruined.

Can lotto/lottery proceeds please God? Many people claim to be playing the lottery or gambling so that they can give the money to the church or to some other good cause. While this may be a good motive, reality is that few use gambling winnings for godly purposes. Studies show that the vast majority of lottery winners are in an even worse financial situation a few years after winning a jackpot than they were before. Few, if any, truly give the money to a good cause. Further, God does not need our money to fund His mission in the world. Proverbs 13:11 says, “Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.” God is sovereign and will provide for the needs of the church through honest means. Would God be honored by receiving donated drug money or money stolen in a bank robbery? Of course not. Neither does God need or want money that was “stolen” from the poor in the temptation for riches.

First Timothy 6:10 tells us, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Hebrews 13:5 declares, “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’” Matthew 6:24 proclaims, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

You also mentioned a friend who has gotten rich from betting - this seems to be the allure for you and we know the bible teaches us not to covet what others have. All in all, may God guide you into all truth. Amen.

Cheers.

^no wahala. Just make sure you call out your douches within the boundaries of the rules. Cheers.

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Now on the issue of the fig tree;
matthew 21:18-22
Now, from this account, we are made to know that the fig tree withered immediately Jesus spoke to it but in mark 11:12-14 & 20-25
the fig tree did not immediately wither until the next day
so which is which? Did the fig tree wither immediately or the next day?[/quote]Interesting questions.

From this link, they take a shot at answering the above question...http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/did-tree-jesus-cursed-wither-immediately-or-overnight

Did the tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:14, 20
1.Immediately (Matthew 21:19) - "Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.

2.Overnight (Mark 11:14,20) - "He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening. . .20As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up."


This "contradiction" is one of the more problematic. If you look at the chart below you will see that that the areas in blue are difficult to reconcile if we look at them in a strictly chronological manner. One answer I have discovered says that Matthew writes thematically, often grouping topics together without a detailed focus on chronology, where Mark does not. In other words, Matthew simply compressed the event to a single instance in order to make the point about the necessity of bearing fruit. Therefore, Matthew's account is not meant to be chronological, but thematic and that it is Mark's account that presents the chronological order. This is certainly a possible solution. However, the weakness of this answer is in Matthew's use of the phrase "at once the fig tree withered" in 21:19. If Matthew's account is not intended to be chronologically precise, that is one thing that I can accept since it does indeed occur in Matthew. But, the phrase which tells us the fig tree withered "at once" is stating it was immediate. This doesn't leave much room for the fig tree to wither overnight. But, if Matthew were compressing the incident, then the immediacy would be evident.

Another possibility is that there are two different fig trees that were cursed. I don't think this is a viable option if you look at the chart below. But it is a possibility.

Yet another possibility is that in Matt. 21:19, it is not said how much the tree withered. It could be that the tree showed immediate signs of withering but had not completely withered. Then, in Mark 11:14,20 the next morning the disciples saw that the tree had withered from the root up. In other words, the withering was complete.

wiegraf: Far as I can tell I was the only one banned, so why use the word 'them'? Or was cheddah's ban shorter than mine? Why?

Sorry bout that my mistake, I was working several threads simultaneously hence the 'plural'.

I didn't ban Cheddarking. You were the only one who threw an extra mud pie afterwards hence the ban. Please ehn...take it easy here on out. I truly dislike banning people especially good standing members like yourself.

ATMC: @jesoul u are a writer...and a good one,

Thank you sister

@logicboy, lol. Yes, I don't like to participate in endless back & forths if that's what you mean. I make my point and leave the rest to Ireti. Besides, I spend more than 70% of my NL time on modding duties so cannot waste the little precious.

nuclearboy: You too, Jesoul! Still my favourite NLer

We miss you

mazaje: As long as you remove his that's all. . .My apologies. . .

No wahala...Frosbel has been known to bring out the fire in people lol.

@nuclearboy, nice to see you!

mazaje: Jesoul. . .If you are going to hide my post. . .Then you have to hide Frosbel's post as well. . .

I did. If any of insulting quality remain I must've missed it. Please show me...

Those who could not resist throwing more insults have been banned. Does anyone else want to join them?

mazaje: You see the problem?. . .He said his god says atheist are fools and he agrees(Using his god to insult others), I am now saying his god is a fool and some how I should respect people's faith?. . .What the hell is that?. . .

Don't try to deflect. You know that was a deliberate attempt to insult.

People have been somewhat jovially throwing around the "fool" verse all through this thread and it hasn't been cause for angst.

Kay 17: BUT you didn't point out what was illogical about my "opinion"?!

You're serious? you made a series of statements that are simply your opinion that've you've determined to be enough 'reason and empiricism' to 'pronounce' that God doesn't exist.

And are asking what is illogical?

Mazaje that was un-called for. Please remain respectful in discourse and not insult others faith. Thanks.

new comers from here https://www.nairaland.com/1162629/why-didnt-god-corrected-adam

sorry folks, duplicate topic. Pls continue here https://www.nairaland.com/1162646/why-didnt-god-correct-adam

If you guys cannot communicate using non-abusive language I will lock this thread. First and only warning.

Logicboy there was no need for insults.

Please fellas carry on cordially.

plaetton: Good. T
Then let it be understood, especially for my irredeemable detractors on this forum, lol, that when , for example I criticise Adeboye, other MOGs or their NL apostles, I am not criticising christianity as a body, but venting my anger at things that I see as social injustices all done and condoned in the name of christianity and god.

Hehe...you must include it as your signature for it to count.
And come sef, with that statement^, are you indirectly saying you don't necessarily subscribe to atheism?

---

Kay 17: @jesoul

Looool!!

okay oh. Me sef I am laughing.

Suffrey suffrey when making any "pronouncements" in the future that you cannot *cough cough* back up. Occasionally, we will not allow you guys to get away with it . I will allow you to face Enigma, make I siddon watch. Cheerios amigos.