₦airaland Forum

so u don't love ur sister abi? which kind family una come from sef?

aaah. I smell love in the air

Pweety4me:
Hmmm r u d man in your profile pix?

haha. Ya man. U wan smoke?  

@post. Nice dress. U should raise it up a lil more.

haha. U know what's funny. . . the original post I made was about him being crazy about you but  by the time i clicked "reply" u had already posted, and i was too lazy to think of something new so I just changed "he" to "she" and "she" to "he" and put his name in place of yours. So i apologize for my laziness. . .   

Oya don't cry. i will buy sweet for you

"bring up the cud" is what the original texts say. "BRING UP".  rabbits do not bring up anything. They excrete and then eat the excreted stuff. I think we try, today, to force things that the authors of these documents never intended to communicate unto the texts.

I agree this is splitting hairs. . .it wasn't my argument. Just responding to it. 

Anyways, just read a really long essay on this stuff. .  kinda interesting. Makes some of the same points we all, on both sides, have been making since.

Here is some of it, but I'll recommend reading the whole thing. (I don't agree with all of it o. . . but it is written by someone of a faith I don't share so that is to be expected)

What is the Bible?

The question of inerrancy is only a small part of the issue of the Bible's authority and inspiration. We would do well, therefore, to step back for a moment and broaden the focus of our study, at least for a moment, to take in the larger question of what the Bible is and why it is authoritative. How does the Bible describe itself, and how do we describe the Bible? And why?

The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word biblion, which means "book." The Bible, then, is the "book" of the church. This is an excellent description of its place and function in the Christian community. Of course, the Bible never uses this term to describe itself; that is a descriptive term which we have placed on it subsequent to our collecting its various parts into a single book. Let's consider for a moment, then, how the Bible presents itself, and why we have recognized the current collection of books as our one book, the Bible.



Is the Bible the word of God?

Many Christians refer to the Bible as "the word of God." The intent is to affirm and reinforce the divine inspiration of the Bible. However, the Bible never calls itself "the word of God" either. Why not? Because "the word" cannot be distilled to written words on a page. "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12a, NIV). God sends forth His word, and it does not return to Him until it has accomplished its purpose (Isa. 55:10,11). The word of God spreads on earth (Acts 6:7a). We are "born again, through the living and enduring word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23, NIV). The word of God lives in us (1 John 2:14). Through God's word all things were made (John 1:1-3). Jesus' name is the word of God (Rev. 19:13). The word of God, the revealed truth of God, is not a book, even though our book reveals many things about God. But the two are not synonymous.

What, then, does the Bible call itself? The Biblical term for the Bible is "the holy Scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15, NIV) or simply "the Scriptures" (John 5:39, NIV). The term "Scriptures" (literally, "writings" emphasizes the character of the Bible as a library. The Scriptures of this library are "holy" or set apart from others. They are the books recognized by the church (by Christians) as inspired and normative.

Does this subtle distinction between "word of God" and "holy Scriptures" matter? It may. Why? Referring to the Bible collectively as "the word of God" may help to emphasize its divine inspiration and authority, but it may also tempt us to homogenize the distinctive testimonies of the Bible's many parts. This may prevent us from developing a more well-rounded appreciation of its message and limit our understanding of what God's word is. Hence we would do well to recognize the Bible as a holy library rather than a monolithic unit dropped straight out of heaven. But how do we know that this library contains the right books?



The Canon

The list of recognized Scriptures in the church is known as "the canon." The Protestant canon includes the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books referred to as "the New Testament." The Catholic canon includes these books as well as a dozen others that are found in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Though many other Jewish and Christian books have been written over the last few millennia, only these 66 or so are considered authoritative. Why?

Many theories have been proposed to explain and define the canon. One proposed criterion to determine the canonicity of a New Testament writing is authorship. If a book was written by an apostle or an associate of the apostles, it is considered canonical. Hence apostolic authority is the basis of the canon. This criterion, however, is flawed since the authorship of all the books cannot be established with certainty. For example, no one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews. And what would that do to our canon if archaeologists discovered another letter of Paul (say, his letter to the Laodiceans, Col. 4:16)?

The best explanation for the canon is "God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15, NIV). The canon of Scripture as it has been preserved has shaped and defined the community of faith. We know it to be normative because it continues to confront and correct us. We know it to be inspired because we have been unable to tame or obscure its uncomfortable and radical witness. The Scriptures surprise us, embarrass us, call us to repentance, and instruct us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

The canon of Scripture is important because it represents the acceptable limits of diversity and enables us to pinpoint the basis of our unity. It enables us to appreciate each Christian's canon "within" the canon. The Catholic's vision is shaped by the emphasis on tradition and order in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus; the Protestant's vision is shaped by Paul's powerful gospel in Galatians and Romans; the charismatic's vision is shaped by Acts and 1 Corinthians; the Adventist's vision is shaped by Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation; and so on. This appreciation of each Christian's "piece" of the truth prepares us to transcend the barriers that divide us and to grow up into "the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13, NIV).

What is this library we call the Bible? It is the book of the church, and each of us represents a chapter. In tying all the chapters together we begin to glimpse the glory of Christ and to discern the direction we should travel as a collective people of God (see 2 Cor. 3). That is the ultimate meaning of the canon of Holy Scripture.



Conclusion

Is the Bible inerrant, by modern standards, in everything it asserts - even incidentally - about history, science, geography, math, and every other field of human inquiry? Was it meant to be? Our answer to these questions has been a resounding "no." The Scriptures fulfill their intended purpose of communicating God's word to His people, but they never claim to be something they're not - a scientific textbook, for instance. These post-Enlightenment expectations, when superimposed upon the Scriptural testimonies, produce the most curious interpretations.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/inerrant.html

see how she gets defensive. . . . hehehe. Ok. I wont say it again. 

WOO HOO!!! I'm expecting some classics from u soon lol

noetic16:
hez an unashamed gay  

haha. Bring ur wifey make I "chill" wit am for one night. She will tell u just how gay I am when she limps back to u in the mornin  

@post loves mannylex with all her life. Would probably cry if he left NL  

Wants to be adopted into the Knowles' family 

I thought "cud" meant regurgitated food i.e from a ruminant. Does it also mean herbivorous?    I doubt it.

Now, hares/rabbits do eat partially digested excreta, but the word that appears in the Hebrew masoteric texts "Gerah" could mean cud, grain, berry, but not excreta. There is an adequate Hebrew word that would have most likely been used had excreta been the intended term. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1625&t=KJV

ALso, the phrase that is translated in the KJV as "chew the cud" in the Hebrew texts read "bring up the cud". They do not "bring up" anything, they let it go through and then $hit it out.  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5927&t=KJV

The description in Lev is, IMO, inaccurate

Personally I don't think all this matters. . . there are tonnes of inconsistencies and errors in the bible. The authority of the Bible does not come from it's assumes inerrancy. Such claims just, IMO, make believers an easy target for skeptics.

nuclearboy:
Wow! Wow! Double-Wow! See what I said - we jump to conclusions once its the Bible and others, on the basis of these feet in the mouth manouvers, start to damn it themselves! Wow Wow!

Thanks, e36991! 

For possibly having damned urself with the above foot in the mouth manouver, here is a flying drop kick to your medulla oblongata. .  . "GBOSA!!!" 

@ Jeseoul, now there's your money's worth. U do not get a refund

*smiling to the bank* 

Damn! It was supposed to be a short nap. . . . .7 hrs later. . . . . What a waste of my friday night!

bluespice:
*sob* *sob*

se ko si?

haha. I'm not smoking till later tonight when i go out.

I'm goin to have to stay off it for about a month tho. Gotta start studyin for GMAT. DARN MATH!!

lol. i figured.

dunno. I love it I'm naturally hyperactive so it sorta calms me down. I'm sober now which is why i'm posting bollocks all over the place. I need to go smoke sumn sharp sharp

Mmmbop:
weed? what do you see in that stuff? honestly

haha. I'm guessing u've tried it and didnt like it. . . false?

getaway driver for armed robbers

ok doctor.

Mmmbop:
did you draw that?

nah. . random pic i got online.

googles:
've told you to stop smoking dat thing itz already affecting you o ehn ehn

I cant stop smoking that thing. I'm sorry. anything else but that. I'll even have $ex with u.

yeeeeee.

This man u get liver o. How do u know I'm not a juju man

ok, i don off am. come and give me my melecine

on my map

Oshodi bus "rider"

googles:
yu are a nut case. . . . . off ya pant and come and take your injection jor

u too go off ya own?

nothin dey happen jare. i juss dey play o. I take it all back. nothin will happen to anybody o

hahahaha U no dey fear? U go dey look Uche face. . .

whoa!! I want all 5 of u.

The next person that posts on this thread will become severely ill within the next 24 hrs, his/her 1st child will be born with a missing arm and an under developed brain, and will have a very miserable life for as long as he/she lives. The person spouse will catch herpes this weekend and infect . . . .



I am the shampion, I am the shampion, I am the shampion *doing electric slide*

co star who's on top?

pot. kettle. black


toilet scrubber

bluespice:
who is that?

haha. some rapper guy.

This guy

haha. . . nope. maybe camron? thats the only resemblance i see in that pic. . .just noticed it now tho.