₦airaland Forum

toba:
The supreme being referenced in Genesis

Which one? The one far far away that created by saying "Let there be. . . . " or the one close by that forms bodies and plants trees etc?

I just heard that "who dat" track by J Cole. I honestly didn't know people still rap like that. The beat is also out of this world. There is still hope. That track is fire!! Hopefully his whole album is that on point.

@ Chrisbenogor. How body? it's daromp@live.com.

Otu team oshi. Shior!!

viaro:
Thanks for your comments, but I don't assume broadly that the view one takes of the OT would have overarching consequences on claims of Noah's Ark being found - that was why as far as the claims about such purported findings go (for which this thread was set up), I did not broach any significant substance therefrom to draw any conclusions.

haha. Remember I said my question was not really related to the topic of the thread.  . . I just wanted your opinion. Didn't expect u to say the OT was not exclusively Jewish scripture. I swear u are the 1st person i've ever heard say that. lol  But i'll just respond and leave it there.

IMO, Noah's Ark most likely won't be found because the story is Legend. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. .

The turtle and the hare never had a race. That patience and humility are virtues is the point of the story. People getting caught up in whether animals talk, or race and looking for evidence of such miss the point. Kinda like people looking for a boat that held every specie, or trying to look for how a person survived in the belly of a whale. When I brought up Judaism, I was trying to point out that these texts are understood differently by both Christian and Jewish traditions. The Hebrew Bible is Jewish Scripture, and had been for centuries before Jesus was born. Mainly in Christian circles is it considered "Old". There is a tradition that has been passed down, which is ignored, mainly, IMO, because of the tensions between and eventual split between synagogue and early "church". Since then, till mid last century, Christianity and judaism were set in opposition against one another, even though Christianity was very early on, simply another "denomination" of Judaism, with the main difference being their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. . After this split, the Christian tradition developed on it's own, with foreign minds oblivious to jewish tradition intepreting and defining the theology. The result of this is what we see here. . . when people  defend literal interpretations of ancient folklore and sincerely believe any other interpretation is misguided. Just my take on this issue.

viaro:
I thought my explanations should have sufficed. First, I noted that I don't take the view that many people take about seeing the OT as entirely Jewish from start to end; and the reason is primarily that Judaism is a late entry to, and only a part of, the OT. To this end, I observe a distinction between various covenants contained within the OT that are carried over into the Judaism of the 'old covenant'. I went on to limit my previous comments to just two specific and ready examples: the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Jethro which are NOT Jewish, and which concepts were incorporated into Judaism.

You have a good point in the analogy of reading a Canadian history mentioning non-Canadians (Winston Churchill and Mussolini) which does not make the Canadian into European history. However, if I were to proffer by extension that one reads a book on world history and they were reading a volume within that anthology of World History, we cannot therefore argue that the entire anthology was about that particular volume within it. The volume in question may take up a large part of that anthology; but the whole anthology itself is not determined by that particular volume within it.

Abraham was father of a people, Moses is believed to have brought a law to these people, and the Old Testament  is SCRIPTURE for these people. It was written solely for this purpose. 

Jethro and Melchizedek do not change this fact, and do not even, in any way, IMO, suggest otherwise. That Abraham or Moses met with people who had a relationship with their God does not make the Hebrew bible anything other that a Jewish text. Abraham is a father of a nation and in giving an account oh his life they mentioned him meeting with a King/priest, and that makes Jewish Scripture non Jewish? Same with Moses meeting with Jethro. What about Rahab? . . she was a canaanite, I think, that helped the Israelites. . . Does that make the OT Canaanite history/scripture too?  I almost think u are joking.  But this is all inconsequential so I thing beating this into the ground is pointless.  We can just agree to disagree. 

I have to run. . . I'll respond to the rest later. . . or we can finish via email. I can't spend much time online for the next month or so. 

Have a great day/weekend

ugopeter:
its impossible.arsenal is wenger and wenger is arsenal

That is the problem. The guy has so much power that the fans can go to hell with their hunger for trophies. As long as he gets to do whatever he wants he's happy. Screw how y'all feel about it. It's all about Arsene. What a champ, that arsene fellow. Has millions of people wrapped around his peni$.

Adebayor goal!! City back up after villa take lead

2-1 almost half time.

WICKED!!! Nuff said!!

Patewo for ya sef. U do well o. Straight to my iphone.

viaro:
For example, BEFORE the emergence of Judaism and the people of Israel, there were non-Jewish histories that highlight foundational tenets and concepts which are carried over into the Jewish faith. The first mention of a priest is not Jewish but was rather Gentile in the person of Melchizedec (Genesis 14). We also find that Moses' father-in-law Jethro was a priest (the priest of Midian - Exodus 3:1), and though himself not part of the Jewish covenant, he nonetheless rejoiced in the welfare from God that attended the people of Israel (Exodus 18:9).

SO what? That non Jewish people and  ideas may have been expressed in the OT does not, IMO, change the fact that it is an identity and religious document that was produced by, and for, a specific people group, and its theme is their relationship with their God.

What implications does the fact that those ideas and people are mentioned have on the fact that the OT describes Jewish history, and beliefs, as understood by the writers of the documents, and why? If I'm reading a book on Canadian history/beliefs, and Winston Churchill and Mussolini are mentioned, does it now become a European history book? We know that there are parallels between Jewish beliefs and that of their neighbors, but, IMO, the OT is describing Jewish beliefs, and often even puts them in opposition to their neighbors'. I really don't understand what you are getting at . . . . I asked because from what I know, stories like Noah's Ark are generally not believed to be historical. The creation story, etc, are generally believed to be "truth-filled" stories, and not "true" stories. SO a debate about Noah's Ark being found would be of little to no consequence, since they do not claim that Noah actually put all those things on a boat and saved life on earth.

viaro:
It is for reasons like these that I don't count among those who give less regard to the OT, [b]or even among those who assume that the OT is Jewish. [/b]Indeed, the OT speaks largely of the Old COVENANT (and this old covenant is what many understand as Judaism); yet, we find within the same OT that there are several other covenants (such as the Abrahamic and Noahic covenants).

If the OT is not Jewish, in your opinion, what is it, and why?

Circumcision. . . . sign of covenant of who, to whom, to symbolize what? WHy does this become such a big issue during the Paul era?

I'm really excited to read the arguments u are goin to make about the OT being anything other than a Jewish document. 

(I need to point out that the "OT" is a loaded term, and I'm only using it for convenience. I think the "Hebrew Bible" is more appropriate and neutral)

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=94662.msg5974029#msg5974029 date=1272577071]Liverpool are SHYTE!!!!
About fuckin time they sack Rafa Beneath-Us.
The Fat Spanish waiter cannot even get to the Europa Final. . . . . .What a disgrace!!![/quote] I think a Spanish person musta murdered a close friend of urs or some shyte. The way u dey yab Spanish na real waa o

It's a wrap.

How mahrkit?

Damn, Simao wastes a great chance!

Liverpool about to ja bo.

I wonder who killered Bobby. Maybe it were Whitney that poisonoused him. I doesn't have evidences tho so u can just took
my word for it.

@ Viaro. I'll respond to your post later, can't really type much now. Let me know when u have it so I can delete. Looking forward to discussing with u. 

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=334732.msg5972258#msg5972258 date=1272556668]Guardiola was sucker-punched.
He shouldn't have taken off Ibrahimovic. . . . .He was the only striker who could match the giants in the Inter defence.
Anyways, the resultz put paid to the media WANKFEST over Barcelona and Messi(especially).[/quote]I have totally deleted all about that tie from my memory. EVERYTHING!! I have no recollection of what u are talking about. 

Nice weather today, innit? 

We don hear. Oya clap for urself. Oga News caster

@ Viaro. How r u? long time o. Hope all is well. Was just reading thru this thread and have a question. It's not related to this exact topic but opening another thread for this wouldn't make sense.

Since most Christians tend to view the OT as sort of out-dated, and, to some extent, it's teachings even inconsequential as far as the central beliefs of Christianity goes; in your opinion, how come the views of adherents of Judaism (Jews), at least in it's orthodox expression, are almost never considered when OT issues are being debated; and do u think this is positive or beneficial? Jews take it as authoritative, it describes their "history", is their tradition, so I would assume that it is reasonable to believe that they may have some insight that others may not.

@Ajanlekoko. Nice one

I think this whole Ibra hating obsession is just a case of people letting biases cloud their judgment.

When i read posts and the performance of a team is narrowed down to one player, I usually just move on to the next post.

Now, even if it boiled down to the individual players, and one could just juxtapose scenarios, like some of these clowns claim, their whole argument would still fall flat  . . .

Last season Ibra scored 31 goals at inter, 25 in the league, as well as 7  assists. This season, at Inter, Eto'o has scored 15, 12 in the league with 5 league assists.

This season Ibra has scored 21 goals so far, 16 in the League, as well as 9  assists. Etoo last season, at Barca, had 34 goals, and 6 assists.

When people praise Eto'o for what he does at Inter, and diss Ibra, i wonder what data they are actually sorting through. 21 goals and 9 assists in his first season here, despite being on and off due to injuries, and he is still being dissed. Now I'll admit I expected more from him, but the comments made about him are for the most part, IMO, just people letting emotions get the best of them. Una no like the guy. .  period. Most teams won't complain about an off form striker that delivers 21 goals and 9 assists.   Now you can argue about team systems, and roles, and style of play and all that, but I could also argue that Ibra is not the 1st person to play as Lone striker in italy. 31 goals a season for any striker in Serie A is a fukn BiG A$$ deal. Give credit when it is deserved.

Inter beat us fair and square, but it was not because we lost Eto'o or signed ibra. That na some nonsensical superficial beer parlor analysis.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=427433.msg5969334#msg5969334 date=1272522229]i wan marry rich man[/quote]

Me sef dey find sugar mama.

Lesson learned: Spend money even when u just won plenty trophies. Pep asked for more players but thanks to Real Madrid the market was inflated. Laporta pulled a Wenger and promoted sheedren to win us trophies.


Imagine in a CL semifinal game against inter Milan and 2 of our subs that we want to change the game are Bojan and Jeffren. Think about it. . . Are we Arsenal?

I think we got a lil over-confident. The success of last season probably made Laporta believe Pep could do magic with any set of players. After that kind of success teams really really want to see u fall so that is even more reason to reinforce.

Whateva tho. That's football. . . We live to fight another day.


Yaya was horrible Hopefully noone comes here and starts callin Pep an idiot for not starting Henry and Yaya again.

Happy belated beirray Eldee. Sorry I missed the party but please i still want my present so ante up sharp sharp. If my own doesn't have 3 bazooka then that is ojoro.

$ex!!

haha Eldee us life is finished.

Eldee ori e ti ba je.

Market no too bad. $hit happens

Game Over.

Congrats to Inter.  

Goal Pique

Toure needs to come off

Ibra off for Bojan

Inter has a lot of men in the box. You don't need to be Inter for that to be hard to penetrate.

mykali:
guy, i be Inter fan since the days of the left footed trinity of Martins, Adriano and Recoba.
no be today i start . . .if you think i'm supporting Inter bcuz i despise Barca. . .think again.

Mykali I happy as u dey here to witness this

Wish u all the worst!!