₦airaland Forum

ScienceWatch:
I trust Sarassin will see that my comments to fake pastor Bronchitis is not an attempt to derail this educational thread.
Fake pastor Bronchitis Oaroloye, how dare you derail this interesting thread with your Schizophrenic fictional hoaxes and hundreds of out of context comments that belong in the jokes section. We all know by now that your spiritual masters Carlos Castaneda and L.Ron Hubbard were both writers of fiction and they fraudulently deceived their readers into believing that all the novels were non-fiction. After drug addict and lover of sexual orgies L.Ron Hubbard dropping out of George Washington University in 1932, this Nebraska native started his career as a writer doing pulp-fiction works similar to Nagualism’s Carlos Castaneda, for which he was paid a penny a word.
Hubbard published over a thousand science fiction books.
“What the church of Scientology is today, L.Ron Hubbard had previously written about in the form of science fiction?”

Was it necessary to quote entirely what he wrote?

Even if you didn't want to derail the thread, you are aiding and abetting by spamming the thread when you repeated that unpleasant to scroll down again, to get to the end, extensively long mention.

Don't you know you're subjecting the readers to reliving the experience of scrolling down to the end?

Ken4Christ:
The spirit world is real and there are spirits we do not usually see with our optical eyes except by visions and revelations.
However, the Scripture warns we should test every spirit.
Not all spirits are from God. Any spirit that does not direct your attention to Jesus is not from God.

Some of what people practice as posted on this thread is occultism.
Please desist from it and give your life to Jesus and receive the most powerful spirit - The Holy Spirit.
There is no supernatural power that is greater than the power of the Holy Ghost.
It does not just give you the power to see things ahead,
it also gives you the ability to change things you don't want to happen which has already been revealed to you.

It is safer to have supernatural encounter with the Holy Spirit than with evil spirits.
The evil spirits sometimes disguise as good spirits but the only to tell the difference is with the word of God.
Do the spirit ignite your passion for God and Jesus.

Please, avoid all the philosophical teachings that emanated from eastern religion.
They will put you in bigger bondage.
But Jesus will set you completely free. Shalom.

Wilgrea7:
I avoided quoting the whole of your post because i don't want to derail this thread..
no religion has the monopoly of anything..
the God-devil duality mentality should only exist within Christianity
and not in a worldview of all religions because it created without the worldview of religions..
I'll avoid saying more so as not to derail this thread...

⁸The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.
⁹He will not always strive with us,
Nor will He keep His anger forever.
¹⁰He has not dealt with us according to our sins,
Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
¹¹For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.
¹²As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us
- Psalm 103:8-12

After sending them out, the LORD God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden.
And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life
- Genesis 3:24

So Cain went out from the LORD's presence
and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden
- Genesis 4:16

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east,
that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there
- Geneisis 11:2

To go east, nine times out of ten, is a euphemism, for and/or about moving away from God

In Genesis 3:24, Adam and Eve, via the east of the Garden of Eden, were sent out to the east
In Genesis 4:16 and Geneisis 11:2, people continued following an eastward course
Journeying further from the east, moving further away from the garden of Eden.

Actually moving eastward, biblically signifies moving into wicked dabblings
and biblical history shows people travelling to the east, end up either being in trouble or be the cause of trouble
(e.g. Cain in Genesis 4:16 and the people associated with the Towel of Babel in Genesis 11:2 above)

¹Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem
²Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him
- Matthew 2: 1-2

Psalm 102:12, states:
As far as the east is from the west, that is how far God has removed our rebellious acts from himself.

Attracted by Jesus Christ, the Magi, the wise men from the East, retracing their steps,
travelled as far as the East is from the West, moving back towards Eden & gravitated to God

Except like the Magi did in Matthew 2:1-2 above,
any Eastern religious spirituality not acknowledging the supremacy of Christ, is a very bad idea
and any Eastern religious spirituality adherent unwisely not admitting, accepting, recognising, appreciating and confessing Jesus Christ is doomed.

The blundering move further to the East (i.e. moving away from God)
and particularly the arousing interest in eastern religions, lately is, strong
that my not-going-to mention-name friend doesnt and wouldn't like the lid in anyway slight, be opened up on it.

I am not wishing to give the impression that I am an authority on spiritual matters, only just saying,
but I am sure, not-going-to mention-name friend and others, will soon, be along to say that I have written rubbish anyway

Disclaimer
- All persons mentioned in this post are mentioned merely as source(s) of information and nothing personal

Wilgrea7:
no

No?
What exactly are you no-ing to?
You're aware, as well as I am,
that eventually, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when being used up and having served its purpose, wouldnt anymore be present in the garden
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have served the reason for which it was created and so it removed
The tree of life however stays remaining to serve its purpose

You must have heard it said: The best teacher in life is experience

Wilgrea7:
Is it the fruit from the tree that gave them the enjoyable experience?

Seems you're latching on my comment to make it ambiguous, so let me rephrase the question using ''pleasant'' instead of enjoyable
Did Adam and Eve have a enjoyable pleasant experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Tell now

Experience (i.e. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) is a hard teacher
because she gives the test (i.e. to eat the fruit, or not to eat the fruit) first,
then the lesson (i.e. to know or knowing good and evil) afterwards.

Experience is not always the kindest of teachers, but it is surely the best.
Experience is the best teacher, it is because of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we get to know good and evil

Wilgrea7:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil: and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

please examine the bolded and tell me where experience was written there or where it doesn't mean that man would know good and evil.. what does it mean to know good and evil

The only source of knowledge is experience
- Albert Einstein

You see my friend, you're just over-reacting and unnecessarily being unhappy with me using knowledge and experience interchangeably
Please tell, is it possible to have knowledge without experience?

OK, examining the bolded reveals it is talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or Genesis 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience
First-hand experience and not them-say experience or a God-said experience
You will personally know what good and evil is, will have personal experience(s) of it

Wilgrea7:
tongue i.... you... what? this does not relate

No worries, I will edit or rephrase the comment
Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
The experience of eating the fruit, surely left a bad taste in Adam & Eve's mouth
The memory of the sour taste whilst the fruit was ate would be an unpleasant one
The point is, eating the fruit, left them with an opposite impression to one they were expecting

Wilgrea7:
where does knowing something equate to experience?...
you're trying to forcefully put experience in place of knowledge in that verse then change the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the tree of experience of evil.. the gods said that man is like unto us..
does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine. plague etc etc??

Here you go again overreacting
C'mon, stop incorrectly and falsely being pedantic.
I have, above, already put forward, how, when and where knowing something equate to experience

Does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine, plague etc etc, is a non question
Is it necessary for me to remind you that, God knows that the absence of good is the presence of evil?

Wilgrea7:
experience.. knowledge.. different

Not necessarily all the time

Wilgrea7:
and where is it stated that the knowledge of good and evil was gotten from experience?.. it was gotten from eating the fruit.. what bible are you using ?

SMH. This has been addressed above

Wilgrea7:
its actually the other way round

This too has been addressed above

Wilgrea7:
you are the one that clearly stated that everyone has limits or boundaries or somewhat orientation of something

so saying that man had somewhat orientation of good and evil,
then why isn't the tree supposed to expand his knowledge of good and evil
instead of giving him the knowledge
- Wilgrea7

Yes, I did so responding to your remark reproduce above

Adam was orientated and told about the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Contrary to your remark, Adam wasnt told the tree of knowledge of good and evil will expand his knowledge of good and evil
but rather as the tree's name signifies, it is a tree that will give whoever eats of it, the knowledge of good and evil
Eating the fruit of the tree will give the opportunity to experience the knowledge of good and evil

Part of the orientation was about letting it be known that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is off limts
That's your boundary there, the tree is out of bounds to Adam and Eve

Wilgrea7:
the tree was said to give knowledge of good and evil.. its written right there in the bible..
just as the tree of life was said to give eternal life..
or tress can't give eternal life? its what is written in the bible right there

The tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it possible to know of good and evil.
Without eating from the tree, it was not possible for man to experience good and evil

Same with the tree of life, eating or partaking of the tree of life, makes it possible for man to have or experience eternal life

Wilgrea7:
experience.. knowledge.. different

Again, not necessarily all the time

Wilgrea7:
yes

Smiling

Wilgrea7:
no . i don't totally accept .. but let us proceed

If you dont totally accept, how far are you accepting then?
What of, you do accept darkness is the absence of light?

Wilgrea7:
it is very possible.. experiencing something can give you knowledge of it.. not the other way around..
someone whose finger got burnt by fire has knowledge of what fire does to the finger through his experience.. Genesis
but someone who knows what fire does only knows.. he has not experienced it.

Well that is why the bible Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience

It is talking of first-hand experience, not a second-hand, third-hand, them-say experience or a God-said experience
To know what good and evil is, talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
You will have personal experience(s) of knowing. You will personally experience the know
So in the above context, I reiterate, its impossible to have experience without knowledge

Wilgrea7:
please refer to my points above..

I had and still stand by my original comment
You now, need to go over and reconsider my points

Wilgrea7:
ok. agreed.. Adam is as guilty as eve

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression
- 1 Timothy 2:14
Adam though wasnt deceived, is no doubt as guilty as Eve
I am glad, you agree and arent anymore saying Adam was deceived

Wilgrea7:
ok

Smiles

Wilgrea7:
i will attach a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of knowledge.. there are different ways to get knowledge

Attaching a screenshot of the dictionary with an alternative meaning of knowledge is unnecessary, when what the bible is talking about is posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)

Wilgrea7:
i know what merism is..
i was just pointing out your desire to acknowledge only the bad and leave out the good...
stressing as if the tree of knowledge(not experience) of good and evil entails knowing(not experiencing) evil alone

If you admit to knowing what merism is, why then are you pulling me up for highlighting and giving a flavour of what experiencing the range or scope of the knowledge of evil is?

I gave an inexhaustible list of experiences of the knowledge of evil following eating the fruit

Now here's me being fair, please give me three lists, Adam & Eve had, of experiences of the knowledge of good, following eating the fruit

Reiterating, experience is the best teacher
and the worst experiences teaches the best lessons
Via the tree of the knowledge of good and evil comes the worst experiences
(i.e. instant and an anti-climax death, trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera)

Wilgrea7:
no

is it the fruit from the tree that gave them the enjoyable experience?

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

please examine the bolded and tell me where experience was written there or where it doesn't mean that man would know good and evil.. what does it mean to know good and evil

tongue i.... you... what? this does not relate

where does knowing something equate to experience?... you're trying to forcefully put experience in place of knowledge in that verse then change the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the tree of experience of evil.. the gods said that man is like unto us.. does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine. plague etc etc??

experience.. knowledge.. different

and where is it stated that the knowledge of good and evil was gotten from experience?.. it was gotten from eating the fruit.. what bible are you using ?

its actually the other way round

you are the one that clearly stated that everyone has limits or boundaries or somewhat orientation of something

the tree was said to give knowledge of good and evil.. its written right there in the bible.. just as the tree of life was said to give eternal life.. or tress can't give eternal life? its what is written in the bible right there

experience.. knowledge.. different

yes

no . i don't totally accept .. but let us proceed

it is very possible.. experiencing something can give you knowledge of it.. not the other way around.. someone whose finger got burnt by fire has knowledge of what fire does to the finger through his experience.. but someone who knows what fire does only knows.. he has not experienced it.

please refer to my points above..

ok. agreed.. Adam is as guilty as eve

ok

i will attach a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of knowledge.. there are different ways to get knowledge

i know what merism is.. i was just pointing out your desire to acknowledge only the bad and leave out the good... stressing as if the tree of knowledge(not experience) of good and evil entails knowing(not experiencing) evil alone

I am currently on the road
but will asap respond to each of your responses
I have already seen the few "odds and out of places" in your posts to address

GoodMuyis:
Have you study Law of Inheritance/Behavioural_genetics
NO? Go and do it

kkins25:
LOL.. you finally made me laugh!!!!
what has spiritual issue have to do with genes??

GoodMuyis is right, you ought to do a studious reflection
if not the joke will actually be on you because the physical is a shadow of the spiritual
and often mimic the logic and principles of something spiritual

How do you think you successfully get to compose and write a Word document?

If the Normal Dot Dot template file is corrupted/compromised,
it is becomes impossible to edit, compose, write Word documents,
because it is upon it's pre-formatted settings like font size etcetera that all new blank and old documents are based
The old new and blank word document inherits from the Normal Dot Dot template file

There isnt any need to go into servers Access Control List (ACL) and inherited permissions

Wilgrea7:
then of what purpose was the fruit?

You accept that, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is no longer left in the garden
then it must have served its purpose and a purpose?

Wilgrea7:
i understand you're making a good point..
but adding *experience* to that line has no basis nor backing

Ah-ha haba Chief?
Did Adam and Eve have an enjoyable experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Wilgrea7:
the verse clearly states that he would know what is good and evil.. it did not mention experiences..
rather, it indicates that man would be able to know what is good and what is bad

Which verse said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''
What verse are you talking about that said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''?
Tell, so we'll both be on the same page,
otherwise retract that remark and correctly quote it

Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
Eating the fruit surely left a lasting sour tasting experience on Adam and Eve's tongue

Wilgrea7:
why did you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not that of good?

I could have but didnt
because I was more foucused and interested in driving home the point that
a complete range or scope of evil was brought forth from eating the fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil

Wilgrea7:
knowledge is different from experience.

Adam had knowledge from God that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil constitutes getting a death sentence
Adam knew that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even by its name alone, is a dead giveaway that, the tree is capable of giving good and unpleasant experiences

There is knowledge based on experience.
One becomes experienced from merely knowing quite a lot

Wilgrea7:
so saying that man had somewhat orientation of good and evil,
then why isn't the tree supposed to expand his knowledge of good and evil
instead of giving him the knowledge

Hold on, what are you on about now?
Did God tell anyone that eating from the tree will expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil?
Adam was given the know, enough for him to have an edge and not to fall for Satan
Did you not read what Eve's justifications are (e.g. eating the fruit will make one wise)

Knowledge and wisdom always comes from above. God gives them
They dont come from trees, and certainly not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasnt going to expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil
instead the eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
is like flicking on a switch that activates and turns on the tree's floodlights of good and evil for Adam to experience

Wilgrea7:
you're trying to equate knowing what good and evil is to opening a door to evil only..
knowledge is knowledge.. experience is different..
knowing something is different from bringing forth something..
knowing something is poisonous won't make you die of poison by just knowing..
also.. not knowing something is poisonous won't also save you from dying if you eat it

It was in Adam's good interest, that he was made to know, it is fatal to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

You do accept that evil, is the absence of good and accept that death, is a separation from God

Knowledge and experience are part of a same tag team
Its impossible to have experience without knowledge
When Adam ate the fruit, he would have experienced a knowledge of an instant separation from God (i.e. spiritual death)
rapidly followed with another experience of the knowledge of the absence of good (i.e. strange unpleasant emotions)

Wilgrea7:
Adam was deceived..
in fact.. from the story, my guess is that he didn't know the fruit until he ate it..
but that's not my point.

Adam was deceived? Really?
Your guess is wrong because Adam certainly and fully knew the fruit before he ate it
Who coached Eve and exaggerated the truth claiming that a sheer touch of fruit of the tree will cause death?
Of course, it couldnt be anyone else than Adam told Eve this now

Adam was not deceived
Adam's DMZ effort didnt work, Satan had infiltrated his security
so leaving Adam with no choice than to resort to kamikaze.
I guess he rather the degeneration start from him than be from any other male
but that's for another discussion time and not today's

Wilgrea7:
I believe I've tackled the issue of the meaning of knowledge above..
also.. I'm interested in knowing why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good..
bearing in mind that knowledge, experience and opening a door to something are entirely different things
but that's not my point

I believe to a certain degree, I've addressed your quibble over my use of the terms; knowledge and experience
and also the reason for the synonyms of evil and not of good

Knowledge is:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation
- Google Dictionary

I am increasingly now becoming very interested in knowing why people dont seem to with great care and thoroughness read my post(s)
It beggars belief, why you bring up this: ''why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good...'''
after I 've already alluded to merism in the post section you mentioned

In law, a merism is a figure of speech
by which a single thing is referred to by a conventional phrase that enumerates several of its parts
or lists several synonyms for the same thing
- Google search meaning of merism

chemystery:
It was when I saw where MuttleyLaff countered a fellow Christians claim
( https://www.nairaland.com/3960772/jesus-not-even-willing-die#59062808 ) that I knew him and his goons are all confused.

To them, the bible does not mean what it said rather it said what they themselves mean

Most of my postings will either attract a strong mind or put off a weak one
The strong mind will head upstream along with me against the flow,
whilst the weak one will go with the regular and usual flow

If all you do is follow the herd,
then you've already before any of my posts, like the one you brought up,
been stepping on centuries old, shipload of mistranslation horseshit or crap
Now recognising the truth from the different regular load of horseshit or crap you're used to is a challenge

kkins25:
this is the same technique you used to dodge pastoraio debate (which you lost).
you said you would reply but its still pending.
sarassin is also awaiting your response. now you have added me to the que. its all right, take your time.

Dont worry young buck,
The chicken will shriek when the egg(s) is laid. Thank you.

Sarassin:
Elderly? you haven't seen me whizz down the street with my turbo-charged zimmer frame!

You're a real class act
and your boy races doing fast and furious along the High Street pavements are legendary

kkins25:
proofread when im using andriod?? how much would I earn??!!hahahaha...
even with my tab writing posts is hectic.. chicken is not a rude name, its an expression

Bah! This is part of the problems with you guys nowadays
Class is out of the window because of money

chemystery:
You are busy confusing yourself until you gave me the answer I needed.
Thanks. I'm glad you agreed with the bolded

Disobedience (sinful nature) of man made man eat the fruit.
Meaning the concept of original sin is flawed.
It wasn't actually the fruit that brought about a sinful world.
Adam eating the fruit or not, that sinful nature is already in him.

https://gifyu.com/images/smhpx3.gif
SMH. You must be a comic of some sort
Humor us more. What is original sin?
Which sin do you perceive or understand as original?

You really need to take to my earlier advice to painstakingly read my post before keyboard trigger happy responding back

chemystery:
Lol, because I said Christians said god created man perfect, now you want to deny that just to win an argument.
Even asking me to give a bible quotation on that

I submitted that God never ever said He created man perfect
Dont know about winning an argument.
Is winning an argument your driving force?

chemystery:
Look above at all the extra biblical explanation you gave without any quotation

Biblical quotations arent all time for every Tom, Dick and Harry
At the right time and for the right Tom, Dick and Harry, I proffer right biblical quotations

chemystery:
You even spoke to the extent I wondered if god now has a nairaland account. I even wanted to ask if you are the Yahweh

I will not be surprise if tomorrow you deny all the pointless extra biblical explanation you gave up there just like you have denied that you guys said god created man perfect

NPComplete:
I swear. I thought I was the only one who noticed the guy's love for bold assertive statements as if he was with God Himself when everything was going down. Two many delusional clowns in Christianity. No wonder there are so many denominations that do not agree with one another because all of them boldly believe they know God 100%.

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God,
who gives generously to all without finding fault,
and it will be given to you
- James 1:5

For the LORD grants wisdom!
From his mouth come knowledge and understanding
- Proverbs 2:6

The energy both you put into sarcasm etcetera would be beneficial to youse and youse health
if you both humble yourselves and seek the face of the LORD

NPComplete:
U should have directed this to the guy who that I quoted.
He was the one who claimed humans were perfect then they failed

https://gifyu.com/images/drinkSwirlRolleyes.gif
Its a FYI

NPComplete:
And u do? Lol. Delusions.
I am sure u even know what God was doing before he decided to create the earth.
Secondly I don't see what this shyte u wrote has to do with my comment which u quoted.

I didnt for a second think you would

NPComplete:
Perfect and failed?
Aren't those two opposing words in that context.
What is perfect never fails and what fails isn't perfect. Sorry.

Perfect in relation to man only started to be used for him in the NT
Though the first man was made as good as he possibly can be, God never said, man, individually was good
What we, however read is:
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

NPComplete:
Also the attempt to bring Jesus into this would have made more sense if Jesus was assumed to be an ordinary man from inception to crucifixion without knowledge of his innate God-likeness just like any modern human.
But, nah, Jesus knew he came from heaven he knows the glory to be gotten in heaven is far greater that what the earth could offer so he was able to resist for just a mere 33 years. So it doesn't prove anything. Sorry

Sorry, apparently you haven't the foggiest idea
#1 What God is
#2 If or not this God can exist simultaneously and concurrently in more than one place at the same time
#3 Why God had to come down to earth in the person of human being
#3 What God needed the person and body of a human being for
#4 Why Jesus had to patiently wait, 30 years, before He is qualified to start the work of God

Wilgrea7:
the question should be.. “was man created with freewill?"
if yes, then why did he have to eat a fruit to tell him the difference between good and bad?

He didnt have to eat the fruit in order for him to tell the difference between good and evil

Adam already understood the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is a tree of good and adversity,
that it's a tree of the knowledge of good and difficult or unpleasant experiences,

Just like he saw animals and recognised each according to the name he gave each one.
Adam, by sheer looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
understood that, it is a tree of the knowledge of good and trouble, misadventure,
suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera oozing instant and an anti-climax death

Wilgrea7:
if he could do what he wanted without any orientation of whether it is good or bad.. does that constitute as freewill?

You must think Adam was unintelligent and also didnt receive orientation

Everything; inanimate objects or not, everybody; kids or not, everyone; incarcerated or not, have various degrees of demarcations, limits, boundaries etcetera where lines are drawn

Wilgrea7:
if man was not created with freewill, and he did not know the difference between wrong and right.
then how did he know that he was not supposed to eat the fruit and that eating the fruit was wrong?

He knew that he was not supposed to eat the fruit because he was explicitly told not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
and on hindsight should've heeded God's warning not to

How do you mean, Adam didnt know eating the fruit was wrong, when the name of the tree is a dead giveaway.
What is right in eating off a tree of the knowledge of good and epitome of evil?

Knowledge of evil means to bring forth trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera oozing instant and an anti-climax death
Pitch someone else with this line of reasoning jaare.

Wilgrea7:
if he didn't know that eating the fruit was wrong because he didn't know the difference between good and bad, why then was he punished?

Punished? Isnt that an unfair and strong word to use
He was told to refrain from eating the fruit and informed that it isnt a worthless command having no consequence for flouting
but he made a harsh decision and took a risky action in the hope of getting whatever the desired result was/were

Wilgrea7:
and if he knew it was wrong, then doesn't that mean that he knew the difference between right and wrong
and should not need any fruit to reveal it to him?

You seem to have missed the part where the Lord God said:
''The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil''
the above merism, in effect, is saying,
Man has eaten the fruit and the pandora box has been opened, letting man now become like one of us, knowing, what is good and trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera plus instant and anti-climax death, albeit from a bitter lesson.

Apparently, the only means for man, to know good and trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera plus instant and anti-climax death, is if he eats the fruit off the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

All Eve's plan, proxy Adam, backfired and the tragedy part is that, curiosity killed two cats

chemystery:
This is another great point!
Ken4christ, GoodMuyis, MuttleyLaff, oya come answer this also

The real point is that the best is always there for them who leave the choice to God

chemystery:
If they had passed the integrity test, what would happen if Satan comes again to tempt them?

If the test had been passed, Adam would have been attended to and Satan would have been dealt with.

chemystery:
Prove that passing the first test guarantees that other test would be passed?

The proof of the pudding is not always in the eating
Satan's face lit up with an impish glee, the moment, Adam took the fruit off Eve's hand and ate,
and took Adam to the cleaners, on top of having him for breakfast.

Isnt it ironic, that the first man had a stern unwelcome and painful experience from eating,
whereas the second man had a wide welcome and pleasant experience from not eating

Responding your to your ''Prove that passing the first test guarantees that other test would be passed''
Jesus, is the proof that passing the first test guarantees that other test would be passed

Because Eve convinced herself with 3 ''justifications''
(i.e. #1 - fruit that was good to eat, #2 - nice to look at, and #3 - desirable for making someone wise)
to eat the fruit despite the explicit and expressed command not to eat it
the second man, instead of having 1 test like the first man had,
was subjected to 3 tests relating to the 3 specific areas that got Eve captivated
So, Satan, three times, kept coming after the second man and thank God, 3 times failed

To Eve, the fruit that was good to eat, was in fact, the lust of the flesh
so Jesus got tested for that
(i.e. Whilst hungry, Satan said to Him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread)

To Eve, the fruit that was desirable for making someone wise, was in fact, the pride of life
so Jesus got tested for that
(i.e. Satan took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the highest part of the temple.
and said to Jesus, "If you are the Son of God, jump!
Scripture says, 'He will put his angels in charge of you.
They will carry you in their hands so that you never hit your foot against a rock)

To Eve, the fruit that was nice to look at, was in fact, the lust of the eyes
so Jesus got tested for that
(i.e. the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain
and showed Him all the kingdoms in the world and their glory
and said: I will give You all this if You will bow down and worship me)

Experience shapes character and character determines our action(s)
Jesus, the second template, passed each 3 tests
and many copies are patterned and produced after His image and character

GoodMuyis:
YES

chemystery:
that wasn't a polar question

Dont you know when GoodMuyis is teasing you

chemystery:
It means god never trusted what he created. It means man have that tendency to either do good or evil.
It means the world will still be sinful whether man ate the fruit or not.

You see why I rather God be God, than you

Inspite of all of that, God still went ahead with creation and Adam

Why?
#1 because He is in control and is certain He has has everything under control
#2 Sin make it necessary that man needs to be created
#3 It means, there will with time, be a world, where the consequence of sin will no more be death, grief, sorrow or pain

chemystery:
Tell me what would have stopped Cain from killing Abel if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit,
and Satan had tempted Cain since there is that freewill to do good or evil

Brilliant question.
If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit,
then Cain would have been the product from a man who hasnt fallen from grace
and inherited an integrity still intact

You do accept that Adam and Eve are the primary target?
Satan is a quick on the draw opportunist, and always strikes while the iron is hot
Get them, especially Adam, being the template,
then everything else about and from them becomes compromised

Timing is crucial to Satan's counter-plan
as humanity will fall like dominoes, when Adam falls

GoodMuyis:
MuttleyLaff Welcome back,
where you haff dey?
chemystery the fruit of the three of life is meant to be eaten, but the command not to eat the fruit is an integrity test to man's freewill.
Even angels rebel against God, so what is man that was created with freewill not to be tested for integrity?

GoodMuyis, hi Bro

I am ever present, it's just that, you only see me comment after I've picked and chosen battles
Since lots of posters like to post on the Religion forum for the sake of just causing controversy and sucking up to moderators for petty FP
over time, one gets to know if or when, it's a right time to speak up for, speak against or to just let the something slide and be.
Alternatively, be silent until you can be the loudest.

chemystery:
@bolded, well, if you tell me god created man imperfect, then the concept of original sin does not hold cos this makes man a sinner by default.

It's you who first brought this up with this remark:
''Why then do Christians say god created man perfect...''
so I challenged you, to reproduce here, anywhere from the bible, where and at any time, God said He ever, created man perfect
Perfect, in relation to man, only began to be used in the NT
The quest to be a perfect man, the advice to aspire to be a perfect man are NT stuff, never and not OT, my friend.

chemystery:
Forget about consequence of naming animals.

Whatever floats your boat.

chemystery:
There must not be consequence before you term an action as disobedience.
If god ask Adam to name animals, and Satan ask him not to, is that obedience or disobedience?

Its the latter (i.e. disobedience)
with no defined unwelcome, unpleasant and painful or harmful outcome

It is unlike the disobedience of the command not to eat the fruit
that had a defined unwelcome, unpleasant and painful or harmful consequence of death

chemystery:
Adam as well have equal tendency of disobeying god in any other way whether there is a consequence or not.
Well, you have agreed that god didn't create them perfect. If so, I can rest my case.
Else you tell me why a perfect human should have that tendency of committing sin by default.

Disobediences, dont all necessarily have consequences
Are you a bad person?
Else you tell me why a not-a-bad-person-that-you-are should have that tendency of doing bad by default?
All the time, people do bad things, but that dont necessarily mean they are bad people

Do you buy a perfect electrics bulb at all?
Do perfect electric bulbs forever remain perfect?

It's impossible for you to reproduce here, anywhere from the bible, where and at any time, God explicitly said, He created man perfect
because God knew man is a house of cards that will need strengthening
and before Adam, God already had in place a warranty plan

chemystery:
Everyone knows refusal to obey is disobedience. You are only playing with words.
The question there is was it disobedience to god's command that made man eat the fruit
or was it the consequence of eating the fruit that brought about disobedience?

Affirmative, it is disobedience to God's command that made man eat the fruit
and death is the consequence of eating the fruit. Period

If disobedience precedes death, why would death bring about disobedience?

What brought about the disobedience were 3 things:
#1 - fruit that was good to eat,
#2 - nice to look at, and
#3 - desirable for making someone wise

chemystery:
Also, if Satan had tempted man to disobey god in other regards aside from eating the forbidden fruit, are you saying man wouldn't have disobeyed?

Affirmative.
The second man is, case in point and a testament to this fact and truth

kkins25:
go nd read again. sir chicken..the truth would piss you off

I see you've taken my advice to tidy up your post
- the presentation is now better and no more a tangled mess

You're back on the queue. I'll get back to you, moment asap you get to the fore

Now dear friend, if you cant learn to be serious and open-minded
at least learn to be respectful to people
and stop yourself from name-calling others by using rude names like sir chicken
You're picking up bad habits from MrPresident1

Why are your posts always in bad styles?
Dont you proofread your posts before and/or after posting?

chemystery:
We are familiar with the genesis account of the original sin which made us believe that sin originated after Adam and Eve must have consumed the fruit from the forbidden tree

Sin and Human beings
Necessity is the mother of invention
Sin; difficult problem(s) & situation(s) inspires ingenious solution(s); Man

chemystery:
If one should carry out a proper analysis of this story, one would realise that man was inclined to committing sin even before eating the forbidden fruit. Reason being that the act of disobedience came in first before the consumption of the fruit. Meaning there was an inclination of committing sin even before the fruit was eaten.

SMH
Disobedience was activated or triggered the moment the fruit was eaten
Remember that the command was ''thou shall not eat...''

chemystery:
It also means that there is equal tendency of Adam to disobey god as well when he was instructed to name all the animals had it been Satan also tempted him not to

You're clutching straws mate,
because there was no stipulated consequence for disobeying God's instruction to name all the animals

chemystery:
In conclusion,
Disobedience (sin/imperfection) made man eat the fruit
and NOT
eating the fruit that made man disobey

Refusing to obey the command not to eat the fruit is the disobedience
Man failed his integrity test

chemystery:
Why then do Christians say god created man perfect/sinless until the forbidden fruit was consumed when there is that tendency for man to do anything against god when tempted by the devil?

I'll give you the ''God created man sinless until the forbidden fruit was consumed'' part
but challenge you, to reproduce here, anywhere from the bible, where and at any time, God said He ever, created man perfect

kkins25:
kill the men, women and children (even children) are kids sinful?? "keep the virgins for yourself" if God uttered such then prophet mohammed is a true prophet.
Remember someone accidently touvched the ark of convenant and he was immediately killed by God. God of the OT destroyed any one who disobeys him. (look how he handled the guy who stayed in the belly of a whale) . im not blind niggar God of the NT loved all creation (yeah lets not remember when God eliminated 99.9 % of human in the flood.

should I post bible verses from the NT and the OT that contradict each other on the character of God?? God created good nd evil according to isiah. according to paul, james, and Jesus himself God is pure LOVE.
Have you heard of gnostism?? they believe jehova aka saldabaoth(spelling error) is the REAL Devil who thinks he is the supreme God. read the gospel of thomas, apocryphal of john, gospel of magdalene.

id pretend I didnt see this. youre now comparing me to God who is supposed to be all-knowing?? hold it there sir.

if I were the all knowing let me tell you what id do.
1) id not have tempted adam. why put chocolate in front of a baby nd say hey dont eat the chocolate, see buscuit there. God knew eve would take that fruit (if he didnt how can he be all knowing??)
2) of the hundreds of planets, the only one suiytable for the satan nd his demons was earth abi?? I would have lock lucifer in the Sun.
3) if I were God the all powerful I would have snapped my fingers and erased evil.
4) if I were all powerful I would provide proof to the atheists that indeed im here
5) if I were all power full I would have delivered the jews from the hands of the romans. up till today the vatican (rome rules)
6) if I were perfect then my creation would be perfect.

So if the bible which is supposed to be the word of God has been altered, why should I not criticize every word, sentence, verse and chapter. just reply my post muttleylaff and stop this chicken tatic of avoiding argument.

Besides the obvious fact that you have a dim and highly subjective view of God
how do you expect anyone to correctly reply to a spaghetti response of this kind from you
Sharpen up the post properly, else it'll be just like an unsharpened pencil - with no point

Sarassin:
Yes, we await the views of the very excellent Muttleyaff…..

You know time isnt always an ally
and I am not into wishy-washy responses
so I have to be selective, until time permits it worth doing well.

Sarassin:
I do agree with a lot of what you have posted, it seems clear that the anthropomorphic Jewish deity that is YHWH is incompatible with that of the more universal compassionate construct of the New Testament, I agree with the contrasts that you have made. There were quite a few early Christian fathers who clearly believed the same too, the likes of Marcion was completely convinced that the God of the OT simply could not be the God of the NT

God is non-corporeal, so any anthropomorphism, anthropopathism and/or personifications used in the Bible or other literature in regards to God, are done in order to make sure the communicated messages gets across in a way that can be understood or related to

If talking of the likes of Marcion was completely convinced that the God of the OT simply could not be the God of the NT
why not, let's make this a bit exciting and more stimulating

What both you say, about the idiosyncrasies of God of Genesis chapter 1, and the LORD God of Genesis chapter 2 - chapter 3?

Have you and kkins25 noticed, the done on purpose usages of just God in Chapter 1, LORD God in chapter 2 and chapter 3
and then the deliberate singular usage of Lord or God in subsequent chapters to Genesis chapter 1, chapter 2 - chapter 3?
This interchanging usage of God, LORD God, Lord and God goes on from Genesis chapter 1 right up to Genesis chapter 9 and beyond.

Sarassin:
It is clear to see that a lot of Marcion’s doctrine found its way into Paul’s writings, in fact were it not for Marcion who collected, collated and distributed Paul’s writings, Paul would be largely unknown today. Isaac Newton was right of course, it is fair to say that the NT writings were significantly altered, we see the horrible curse in the apocalypse of John (Rev 22: 18-19) and of course the outburst of Paul himself in the Book of Galatians against those who in his view, were perverting the gospel, these demonstrate that even in the writers lifetimes their words were being altered, we know that Marcion as well as Polycarp heavily edited Paul’s writings, not to even mention the hundreds of biblical scribes and copyists

Not only Galatia
You omitted mentioning Ephesus too had its fair share perverting the gospel with its goddess (i.e. Artemis of Ephesus)

Sarassin:
It seems to me the NT has less to do with the inspiration of God and more to do with the assertions of Man

You know, as well as I do, that, bible original text translations arent necessarily God inspired

kkins25:
muttleylaff, youre stock on a crossroad

On the contrary, I am not stuck on a crossroad
The question you should have asked is:
What number on my priority list, is responding to this thread, and especially to my friend pastor AIO?
If you had, I would have gladly told you: Far, very far up on the queue is the number

kkins25:
the cyprus cylinder or the bible? which do we take as accurate and reputable?

Judged on each own merits, both

kkins25:
Pastoraio, sarrassin nd co. sorry to digress a bit but my comment is on the character of YVWH.
the way I see it, the God of the OT is quite different from the God of the NT

Most of us watch our parents' dealings and interactions with our kids
I say of such parents that they are quite different from when we were kids and growing up
My dear friend Sarassin, is elderly, and I can bet his kids would have said him and his madam, they've gone soft with age
That things they, his kids, wouldnt dare try with him and his madam, the grandkids are doing then and getting away with murder
(i.e. the grandkids are allowed to do things that they when growing up would've got punished or told off for doing same)

Bottom line. Same God in OT, as its same God in NT, just as its same Sarassin then, and it is Sarassin now

kkins25:
the OT God has no value for human life, on the contrary the NT God loves all good and evil doers

What?! Kai.
The OT God has no value for human life?
Chai there's God ooo

kkins25:
the OT God is somewhat anthropomorphic having attributes of hate, anger, jelousy, regret, creator of good and evil, tempter of men, heart hardner etc.
The NT God is quite opposite, with attributes of pure love and all good, didnt creat evil, feels bad the world is lost etc
when you put the OT and the NT together it makes no sense

It isnt just only anthropomorphism,
there also is the anthropopathism and/or personifications of God, used in the Bible or other literature
all in the quest to make sure the communicated messages gets put across in an understood manner or way.

Maybe putting the OT God and the NT God together doesnt make sense to you
but it sure does make a whole lot and great deal of sense to those it does

kkins25:
if Jesus is God then Jesus was the One who destroyed cities and killed men women and kids.
Why feel remorse that He decided to sacrifice himself to Himself so that Himself would save the righteous and punish the ungodly.

So you dont destroy things, hmm? You dont put things in the trashcan or wastebasket erh?
Pu-lease spare us the sanctimonious talk jaare.

Feel remorse ke?
I can bet my bottom dollar that,
if you were to be God, and for that matter, be a God that is omniscient, knowing all and what you know,
you would have bottled up on creation etcetera and not let Adam see the light of day

kkins25:
I just stumbled upon a book by Sir Isaac Newton onlie and the man claims church fathers altered the texts of the NT. to be continued

The ''church fathers''' theology(ies) influenced their individual translation of the Bible (i.e. NT and all)

NPComplete:
@Muttleylaff just wrote the most dishonest shit I have read in recent times.
This is a Christian version of Al taqiyyah.

Pray tell, where did u get ur own translation from?
The people who wrote the bible believed he said "My God why have you forsaken me?" And they lived sometime close to Jesus so they could possibly give a more accurate interpretation than u. They were also supposed disciples of Jesus so they had no reason to want to lie.
But a dishonest Christian like u just gave us 3 different interpretation to suit ur own narrative. lol

SMH, edit or delete this comment
because you're publicly showing your ignorance.

NPComplete:
Whether or not Jesus was willing to die for the world cannot be ascertained by the passage only though.
It's possible that he wanted to die but he wasn't ready for such excruciating pain.
And being in human form, the pain was more than he could take so he cried out like all men would in the time of despair.
That passage probably speaks about the humanity of Jesus at that moment than anything else.

Wow. SMH. You are working really hard to remain ignorant

chemystery:
MuttleyLaff, funny how you accepted all Jesus said except that line.

Be strong and courageous.
Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you;
he will never leave you nor forsake you."
- Deuteronomy 31:6

"The LORD is the one who goes ahead of you;
He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you.
Do not fear or be dismayed."
- Deuteronomy 31:8

No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life.
Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.
I will not leave you or forsake you
- Joshua 1:5

Then David said to his son Solomon,
"Be strong and courageous, and act; do not fear nor be dismayed, for the LORD God, my God, is with you.
He will not fail you nor forsake you until all the work for the service of the house of the LORD is finished
- 1 Chronicles 28:20

chemystery, funny how obvious it is that you didnt painstakingly go over every line of the content I posted because if you did, you would have noticed and registered where I put forward as fact that Jesus is fully aware of Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, Joshua 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:20 reproduced above, to not have used that strong "forsaken" word in the manner or way, that the translators want to lead all, to believe, is what and how He uttered the words

chemystery:
I have seen how much time you spent to twist the bible to make sure it doesn't mean what it said rather in summary, just like mzhorlah, you are telling us it said what you guys mean

Since "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is in Aramaic,
if Jesus meant "forsaken", He would have uttered "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani"
where ''Nashatani" is the Aramaic for forsaken
and if He did use ''Nashatani", then "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani" would mean "My God, My God, why hath Thou forsaken Me"

but no, Jesus, didnt use 'Nashatani", He used ''Sabachthani" hence the famous dying words:
Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"

chemystery:
My God, My god, why have your presence left me ____ mzhorlah
My god, my god, this is why you kept me _____ MuttleyLaff

Neither God or His presence, at any time left Jesus

chemystery:
I am waiting for Amberon11 and other self acclaimed bible students to give us their own twist in translation/interpretation

It is worth noting, that, Jesus deliberating DID NOT quote Psalms 22:1 verbatim, blindly or directly
but consciously changed or switched language and used the Aramaic "sabachthani",
so as to make the distinction from the Aramaic "nashatani"

"nashatani" and "sabachthani" are both Aramaic
"Nashatani" is the Aramaic word for the Hebrew word "azabtani", where in Psalms 22:1 it is correctly translated as the English word "forsaken"
If Jesus had wanted to say He was forsaken by God, then Jesus would have used "nashatani" and not "sabachthani"

chemystery:
P.S. MuttleyLaff, I also want you to explain why Jesus called his father My God instead of My father.
Since both of them are gods.
I didn't mention this point earlier else you would have twisted it with you initial post to come up with
"My father, My father....." instead of "My god, my god...."

This is a simple and very good question

Jesus called His Father, My God, instead of My father, simply, because He was paraphrasing the beginning of Psalm 22 (i.e. Psalm 22:1)
just like He paraphrased the end of Psalm 22 (i.e Psalm 22:31) too.

Now, chemystery, I am going to give you a venturesome proposal,
without holding back, define God for me, with the full force of all your understanding.

MrPresident1:
OK Muttleylaff, I have been reading up on Aorist tenses .
So, in the context that Paul used it, there was no time or duration attached . You are right.
Paul even admonished Timothy to continue the preaching when he said of himself that ''I have finished the race''

aorist
Grammar
noun: aorist; plural noun: aorists

1. (especially in Greek) an unqualified past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the action.

Take note that at some point in time, the Aorist tense must take a definitive timeline. But, how can we know and verify that the gospel has been preached to the world which is essential for our understanding of end time prophecy? By compositely examining Scriptures, here a little there a little, the part to the whole to build a whole and wholesome picture. The composite examination of the Scriptures will help us to unravel the timeline for the completion of the preaching of the gospel.

Now, before we continue, take note that the people did not know that Noah was already locked up in the Ark until the flood came. Noah had concluded his gospel and was already sealed in the Ark, yet it was not apparent to the people of his day, until the waters came. No one of them took notice.

Again, take note that at some point in time, the Aorist tense must take a definitive timeline. So, why not now, when Peter admonishes us to be hastening on to the day in which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements melt with fervent heat?

To buttress this point on hastening on to the day, Paul's 3 step process for verifying the validity of prophecy regarding the return of Christ has now been fully accomplished and authenticated. The 3 steps have occurred . Christ will return at the time appointed which time is expressly specified to us as ''like a thief in the night, and no one knows the day or hour.

Yes, the Aorist . The time is now, as deduced from the examination of other related Scriptures to find the timeline. The time is now.

Thanks for the knowledge on Aorist tenses

Your major challenge is that you are unable to situate Bible prophecy into contemporary timelines , it is a special gift from God . You need to read on the Enabler from Tyndale and Wycliffe Bibles not in newer Bible translations.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-8
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

What is given here above is explicit and well explained...And now ye know what is withholding (the coming of Christ) that he might be revealed in his time....
For the mystery of iniquity is already at work when you see the authentication process confirmed, but he that is letting/allowing/enabling (the activity of the wicked one) will continue to let him/enable him/allow him until he is taken away. When the enable is taken away nko? and then the Wicked will be revealed, whom our Lord Jesus Christ will destroy at his coming (in September 2017)

OK, you are not an olodo because you thought me Aorist tense , the Aorist tense also explains the nature of our God who commands things that are not as though they are.

Upon authentication, when you see the things that may withhold his coming being demolished, then the point is proved that every creature under heaven has heard the gospel ; and the Aorist acquires a closure.

MrPresident1:
Let us all agree that Muttleylaff is a chicken
His case is closed

MrPresident1:
Requiem mass for Muttleylaff, I done slew the olodo
All bluster and chicken, no stuff whatsoever, shiooor

https://gifyu.com/images/JeffBridgesSittingWait.gif
You're inconsistent just like your failing predictions are
Try Chicken Republic or KFC
as it seems you unnecessarily have OCD (i.e. Obsessive Chicken Disorder)

chemystery:
Every chtistian is well familiar with Matthew 27:46 which says thus

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

This was what Jesus said at his point of death on the cross/stake
which is an indication that he wasn't willing to die hence asking his father why he's failed to come for his rescue.
This implies that he was compelled by his father to die for the world.

If you say he was willing to die but still uttered those words, then he and his father are simply playing a fast one on us.
How can they after making agreement in heaven, came on earth to play pranks on us as if his death wasn't preplanned

Jesus did not say:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me

By hook or by crook, translators try to align Jesus's utterance on the cross with David's lamentation in Psalms 22:1,
but the two scenarios really arent the same

Not sure of the translators' sincerety when imagining and settling for "forsaken"
when that wasnt what Jesus, in the Aramaic language uttered on the cross.

I do understand, and do see why the translators leaned towards "forsaken"
but going for that strong and "borrowed from Psalms 22:1" "forsaken" word stretched the truth
and obliterated getting the true understanding of what Jesus actually said and/or really meant on the cross

I am quite sure, Jesus is fully aware of Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, Joshua 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:20 to not have used that strong "forsaken" word in the manner or way, that the translators want to lead all to believe is what and how He uttered the words

mzhorlah:
Do you even know why God left Jesus?
It was because of the sins of the whole world that was on him.
God hates Sins, you can't live in sin and expect to have a cordial relationship with God.

Back to your question? Jesus said so because he has always felt God's presence.
God was always with him and at that instance he couldn't feel it, he cried out.
Besides, if Jesus wasn't willing to die, first , he wouldn't have come to the world. second, he wouldn't have been persecuted.
Remember, Jesus had all the power in the world to have avoided those persecutions but he didn't .

God did not leave Jesus

No matter, how much any person has talked in life, the final words of most, if not all dying persons in life, seems to command that little extra respect, as listeners pay particular special and strained attention to the last words of a dying person.

Most people' last words are very profound, and Jesus' is no exception when He uttered His.

Repeating, the final words of most dying persons are very important, and last words of such dying people, are usually filled with messages for certain people, last wishes, final requests, final blessings, special instructions, cryptic messages
(e.g. Jesus switching to Aramaic with the "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani'' utterance)

Jesus, as a dying man hung on a cross, uttered the below famous dying 7 last words/sentences

1) Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.
2) Luke 23:43 - Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
3) John 19:26–27 - Woman, behold your son. Son Behold your mother.
4) Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 - My God, My God... (this rest bit is blanked out, to be revealed later)
5) John 19:28 - I thirst.
6) John 19:30 - It is finished (or "It is accomplished'')
7) Luke 23:46 - Father, into your hands I commit my spirit

After reading Matthew 27:46 or Matthew 27:50 and then reading Mark 15:34 or Mark 15:37, one would ask:
"What were those Jesus' last words on the cross, not explicitly mentioned in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37?"

Well of courtesy of John 19:30 and Luke 23:46, we know what the last words, which were not explicitly mentioned in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 are

If you keep, "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani", (i.e. Matthew 27:46 and Matthew 27:50) in the mind,
and also keep "it is finished" or "it is accomplished" together with "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" in mind too
(i.e. Matthew 27:50 or Mark 15:37 with John 19:30 and Luke 23:46)
then there is a good chance of understanding what Jesus Christ actually said with "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
(i.e. My God, My God, (the continuing bit here is blanked out, to be revealed later))
and also know what He was saying and was doing with those last dying words.

For whose benefit, there, did Jesus, in Aramaic utter His last words?
Who were listening, who there could have understood the language He uttered and who there was the message in that utterance for?

Jesus for the benefit of the disciples uttered in Aramaic the purpose
(i.e. the reason all those things were happening, the reason why He was created or the reason why He came to exist)
He then after declaring that the purpose (i.e. the process for salvation) is finished or accomplished
excused Himself with the "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" last word

Jesus chose His word very carefully and didnt speak impetuously when He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
Jesus doesnt speak impetuously, like David did, with "forsaken me" in Psalms 22:1
Speak impetuously about God, like that, just isnt at all part of any of Jesus' method of operating

Yes, Jesus did actually paraphrased the begining of Psalm 22 (i.e. Psalm 22:1) just like He paraphrased the end of Psalm 22 (i.e Psalm 22:31)
There are a bunch of other scriptures and messianic psalms Jesus paraphrases.
Paul, Peter and others ocassionally also display this paraphrasing parts of old testament behaviour

Worth noting, is that, Jesus deliberating DID NOT quote Psalms 22:1 verbatim, blindly or directly
but consciously changed or switched language and used the Aramaic "sabachthani",
so as to make the distinction from the Aramaic "nashatani"

"nashatani" and "sabachthani" are both Aramaic
"Nashatani" is the Aramaic word for the Hebrew word "azabtani", where in Psalms 22:1 it is correctly translated as the English word "forsaken"

"Sabachthani" is a homonym and it apart from meaning "forsaken or abandoned", it also means "to keep or kept", "to allow" or "to permit"

Since "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is Aramaic, if Jesus meant "forsaken", He would have uttered "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani"
where "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani" would mean "My God, My God, why hath Thou forsaken Me"
but He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
which when translated, means:
"My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born to do this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

Unlike many misinformed, specifically saying or insisting on "forsaken", the Aramaic speaking disciples and others in the crowd who were from Galilee never for a moment thought that Jesus had said God had forsaken Him.
How can that possibly be? God, forsaking Jesus? Nah, no, no, no.

Those words:
"My God, My God, for this I was kept"
or "My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born for this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

were deliberated spoken in Aramaic by Jesus to God the Father and He spoke it loud and clear enough for the benefit and hearing of the disciples and others who understood Aramaic. He confirmed the plan, confirmed the reason for His crucifixion, and confirmed accomplishing the execution of the plan
He did all this to the hearing of the disciples et al, made it publicly official, so that the beautiful message be known and be passed on to the entire world by the hearers of those unforgetable last words.

The dying last four utterances of Jesus were:
4) Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 - My God, My God, (this bit is blanked out, to be revealed later)
5) John 19:28 - I thirst.
6) John 19:30 - It is finished (or "It is accomplished'')
7) Luke 23:46 - Father, into your hands I commit my spirit

The first of the last four utterances were for the benefit of the disciples, which is why it was spoken in Aramaic
(e.g. "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani'')

The last two words are self explanatory and makes everthing else fall into place once the proper translation of the "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is done.

"Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" means: "My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny"
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

So we have:
"My God, My God, this is why You kept me"; "It is finished (or "It is accomplished'') and then "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"

MrPresident1:
Genesis 1:29 is talking about doctrines and not literal food. Besides the account of Genesis is the creation of man in the image of God. Before the creation of man in the image of God, there was mankind and they were called birds of the air, fish of the sea, cattle and creeping things, these are the description of mankind without the knowledge of man; God breathed into man (Adam) and he became a living soul

Whoa, whoa whoa, come back here
Going off tangent just like that and garbling away

MrPresident1:
There is no high horse here, I am doing the bidding of the one who sent me, He is greater than the whole world combined. Your opinion on how I carry out my instructions remains your business, none of mine, He says I am doing a good job cheesy.
I understand the stiff-necked nature of my subjects, so I act just in the right measure.

You started with high-falutin, now you're acting being self conceited
The one whose bidding I am doing, will repeat Luke 13:27 and Matthew 7:23 to you
If you refuse to turn a new leaf, be warned, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

MrPresident1:
Aorist nonsense grin. Scriptures is interpreted precept by precept, the achievement of preaching the gospel worldwide can be deduced by compositely examining Scriptures. I told you Paul was explaining the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus in Collosians 1:23. When he finished explaining that the gospel had been preached to the world, he moved on to give three very important verification steps in 2 Thessalonians 2, the fulfillment of which would confirm the coming of Christ at the specified time.

There is a specific time that Jesus will come; 'he will come like a thief in the night, no one knows the day or the hour' rather than telling us that Jesus will return on a random date are actually giving us the exact time that he would appear. Study your Greek and find out if they have given you the meaning of these codes in Aorist tenses

Clearly, I am no match for your level of ignorance concerning New Testament Greek Aorist tenses

MrPresident1:
what is kiamosa, another aorist tense? grin
Read from the part to the whole and make a complete and wholesome interpretation of the Scriptures

Everyone has the right to be ignorant
It's just that in your case, you've chosen to abuse the privilege

MrPresident1:
''...which is preached in all creature under heaven''?
What Aorist tense is in this one, What is hard to understand here? which is preached in all creature that is under heaven (FULLSTOP). Of which I am made a minister

Look in the original Greek text to find the Aorist tense and understand it. SMH
That a blind man doesn’t see the sun don’t mean the sun is not up in the sky

MrPresident1:
This one does not know anything, you cannot quote a verse of the Bible in isolation and build Aorist nonsensical postulations on it, you join line by line, precept by precept to make a whole and wholesome interpretation.

Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations and the end shall come, Paul says the gospel has now been preached and gives a 3 step verification process to confirm this, you are here yarning dust.

So ''has now been preached'' is the same as ''which is preached''
All earlier bible translations (e.g. Wycliffe bible and Tyndale bible) before King James version and its other translation contemporaries wrote ''which is preached''
You want keep your guilt and ignorance under wrap, this is why you continue turning a deaf ear and blind eye

MrPresident1:
Outrageous opinions right? The same was said of Christ, they thought he was crazy. He is coming back to exact vengeance and recompense all those that crucified him grin

I have never until on this thread seen a crass display of openly and unashamedly Olympic standard ignorance done like you've been doing

MrPresident1:
Get this into your head right now, Scriptures is built line by line, precept by precept, a piece here a piece there, not on Aorist nonsensical tenses. Your Aorist nonsense falls flat in the face of the holistic and composite examination of Scriptures

I am not going to waste time and breathe on a real hard-case incorrigible comment

MrPresident1:
You are behaving like a fellow here FOLYKAZE who takes a bit of knowledge, chews haphazardly, then turns the knowledge upside down to suit his preconceived designs, and then spews out poorly digested inane gibberish.

I see this fits MrPresident1 perfectly, like a hand in a glove and not FOLYKAZE

MrPresident1:
Revelation 14 opens with a Lamb and 144,000 others having the Father's name on their foreheads, these men were already sealed, they were the firstfruits. Before God carries out judgment, he seals His elect. The angel had the everlasting gospel and preached this until the time the second or latter fruit are also sealed...saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of judgment is come... God will not do anything haphazardly; the sealing of the firstfruit was done, then of the latter fruit, and then the announcement of judgment.

Gone off tangent again

MrPresident1:
This is not a wise question from you. We are told by Paul that upon our authentication of the 3 step process, it means automatically that ''the mystery of iniquity is already at work, he that is letting (the Wicked to operate undetected) will then let until he is taken away'', therefore until the Letter/enabler is taken away, the Wicked will continue to have a field day. The Enabler or the One that is letting is the Holy Spirit. When he is taken away, the wicked will be revealed, and Christ will destroy him at his return. This is so simple to understand

There you are. See
So, if The Enabler or the One that is letting, is the Holy Spirit,
and the Holy Spirit hasnt been taken away
why do you think preaching the Holy Spirit hasnt been taken away
Because the gospel is still been, is going to be preached to the unborn, to another in some remote far place

The gospel wasnt preached in Nigeria, North America in Paul's time. Get a grip man.

JMAN05:
If ones work is to feed the flock, he is a shepherd. Agreed?

I would have gladly agreed if there is one, just one saint in the NT called a shepherd (i.e. as in a noun form)

JMAN05:
Yap because Jesus condemn religious titles for his followers. (Matt 23:1-12) However, they do work as shepherds

So if you know that Jesus condemns religious titles for saints
why then are you fariga fixated on giving saints shepherd titles or calling them shepherds

JMAN05:
Being in plural doesn't make any difference

It does make a difference, whole lot for that matter
because preemptively, I did warn you not to bring forwards plurals

Nothing spoilt. Maybe, another time or day, I'll share why the significance of Eph 4:11's pastor plurality
and why when concerning saints, we always have plural shepherds and/or plural pastors (i.e. in verb form)
Its the same reason why, by divine providence, there isnt a biblical NT recorded, singular noun pastor/shepherd used for saints

JMAN05:
Not only will you acknowledge your inability to prove that women should feed the flock, but others following the thread will see that Satan is shamed, he has fought in vain to change the commandment of the Lord. 1 Cor 14:37, 38.

PSML. I bet women really dont speak in ekklesia except when they get home
Out of curiousty, please do indulge
Give us inexhaustible examples of how the flock is fed

JMAN05:
Such a weak point. The context is about the role of men and women in the church. No prove of your anonymous couple. I have given different translations of the bible and a commentary that shows "they" refers to women, but no, you still see vision

PSML

JMAN05:
No you are the one in denial to accept the truth. You are still in a phantasm, seeing what doesn't exist.

I hear you

JMAN05:
I have given different bible translations

I know you've read me post that, it's true that theology does influence our translation
especially theology centred around deeply held prejudices

JMAN05:
There isn't any prove that this is what Paul was doing.
Artemis isn't a living woman in Ephesus during Paul's day. So what are you saying?

PSML.
Did anyone say Artemis is/was a living woman in Ephesus during Paul's day?
O ma se oo. You really havent a clue

JMAN05:
Instead of you to go straight to the point, and offer proves, you are here exposing your ignorance. How can you use "men and women" and also used "are" and now accompany it with a singular noun?

You're out of your depth mate

JMAN05:
Shepherd is not used for any man or woman?' My op used "pastors". You agree that "pastors" refers to some saints, yet you call the op tautology. Even after quoting a phrase, you still don't see clearly. Keep shooting yourself.

I agreed to no such thing
Quote me verbatim where I did so, if not then retract this statement

JMAN05:
When Eph 4:11 used it. It was used for animals, not humans? Or you think that when the word is used for more than one human, it should appear in the singular?

Did I not warn you in advance against using plurals?
Did I not warn you in advance not to interchange shepherd with pastor?

JMAN05:
When someone's work is to Shepherd a sheep, that person is not the same as a shepherd? Haughtiness is blinding you.
It appears that when I admitted to a mistake, you allowed that to increase your ego

You wouldnt like me take you on and respond to that question
Someone's work? SMH.

I do some many works at home,
yet no one thinks I am same as a doctor, mechanic, plumber, chef, chauffeur, dry-cleaner etcetera

PSML. Haughtiness ke?
The truth is way more important than ego to me

JMAN05:
Women are not permitted to teach in a church service, such feeding is left for men. You are here asking about singing. Don't see the connection.

PMSL
Just answer the question now. You will see the connection if you had answered
So, here is the question again, that I am extremely anxious for you to reply to:
Do women sing songs in ekklessia, ''church'', congregation
or sing songs in Jehovah Witness gatherings, where men are present?
Is it Yes or No?

MrPresident1:
Ok, tenks for the advice on your herbivorous diet grin, me I am a lion, I subsist on only meat, the stronger and tougher the better grin, thank you, you are welcome cheesy

Fruits and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet
If not for sin, do you think you'll be gnawing meat?
In the beginning according to Genesis 1:29, I dont think so

MrPresident1:
Colossians 1:23 is clear as daylight, no need to introduce any high falutin english tense gymnastics...if ye contine in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and WHICH WAS PREACHED TO EVERY CREATURE, WHICH IS UNDER HEAVEN; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

High falutin ko, flatulence ni
Maybe its your flatulence overpowering you
Just get off your high horse and eat the humble pie


What has English tense got to do here?
You seem to forget that the NT was originally written in Greek and not English

Do I have to explain this all over again, here to you?
Listen Ol'boy, and this time, listen real pretty good
Now, for the umpteenth time, Colossians 1:23 was translated to English from Greek
and not the other way round,
For crying out loud, also before translation,
the original text used a Greek Aorist tense and not an English tense
and the aorist tense in the original Greek text for Colossians 1:23
does not contain any reference to duration or completion of the proclaimed/preached action.

You must, kiamosa, get acquainted with Greek aorist tenses man, soonest.
Would do you a world of good and help you get better understanding of the NT

MrPresident1:
If you look at that verse very well and examine the tense and structure, Paul is saying that he is a minister of the gospel that has been preached to the whole world. To grasp Paul completely, PAUL IS SAYING THAT THE GOSPEL HAS BEEN PREACHED TO THE WHOLE WORLD DURING HIS TIME AS A MINISTER; when was this? Long long ago, centuries ago

If nevertheless ye dwell in the faith, founded, and stable [founded, and stabled],
and unmoveable from the hope of the gospel that ye have heard,
which is preached in all creature that is under heaven.
Of which I Paul am made a minister
- Colossians 1:23 Wycliffe bible

yf ye continue grounded and stablysshed in the fayth
and be not moved awaye from the hope of the gospell wher of ye have herde
howe that it is preached amonge all creatures which are vnder heven
wher of I Paul am made a minister.
- Colossians 1:23 Tyndale bible

You're deceiving yourself by believing this ill-informed outrageous opinion of yours
See, look above, I've given you Wycliffe bible and Tyndale bible.
These two bible version were written before KJV ever got to see the light of day
Pay attention to the underlines and compare it with other translation that are written after them

MrPresident1:
Now, Paul's 3 steps have been fulfilled, and, we are now in the period he describes as 'the mystery of iniquity is already at work, and he that is letting will continue to let until he is taken away'...then shall the (hidden) wicked be revealed, which presupposses that the wicked is with us now, only hidden, hidden by the enablement of the one letting. This is The Holy Spirit.

Revelation 14:6-7 gives no time line for the gospel, it only tells us the message of the angel. I fail to see its relevance here

You're behaving like one friend of mine, JMAN05,
he too likes using the ''relevance'' card when cornered into a tight spot

I'll gladly spoon feed you the relevance
If the Gospel has been preached to all the world,
that every creature under the heaven has heard the Gospel.
Or that every single person right now on this planet has heard the gospel of Jesus Christ
then why does the angel in Revelation 14:6 need to have an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth?
Also, going back to 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, has the one restraining the lawless one being taken out of the way yet?

MrPresident1:
From a strong and complete meat diet to a diet of salad and greens, only fit for herbivores, hahaha LMAO

So you came at me with thunder!!!! ;

Hurting someone with the truth is better than making them happy with a lie

MrPresident1:
2 Thessalonians 2:6
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time
In Collosians 1:23, Paul cleared the prophecy that Jesus had given on the gospel being preached to the world as a precondition for his return; he told us in clear terms that the gospel has been preached to the world

How many times do you want to hear this or read it?
PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT THE GOSPEL HAS BEEN PREACHED WORLDWIDE
Maybe ethnically and in the Asia pacific, but definitely not the entire world
Look up yourself, dont take my word for it, on the Colossians 1:23 aorist tense ''proclaimed'' used in the original Greek form.

MrPresident1:
Now, after this, he proceeded to give three steps that MUST be fulfilled before Jesus could be revealed in his time
(a set and certain which we know).
Take note of the three steps in verse 2-4 of 2nd Thess.

Muttleylaff, I am happy to inform you, that those 3 steps, have been fulfilled

MrPresident1, I am sorry to burst your happy moment bubble
but someone has to let you know that the 3 steps are yet fulfilled
Quick questions, who is the one restraining the lawless one?
Has the one restraining the lawless one being taken out of the way yet?
What you reckon are happening in Revelation 14:6-7?