₦airaland Forum

^^^ I hope you know the implications of driving too fast?

^^^
I do not think the argument above is necessary. When a Christian commits murder, that has absolutely nothing to do with Christians. But when murder is done in the name of God or alleged to be sanctioned by God, people are right to make issues out of it. Likewise, when an atheist commits a crime, that is his business. But if an atheistic government, like we had in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Eastern Block, murders people for being religious, there is an issue there and religious people are right to use it to remind atheists that atheism is not always the “live-and-let-live” ideology it is often portrayed to be. Reminding people that Pinochet, “an atheist”, killed people when Moses is mentioned makes no sense at all because Pinochet did not commit his crimes in the name of atheism. By the way, Pinochet was no atheist. (You come across this sort of thing in NL for the first time.) He actually tried to portray himself as a defender of God and freedom of worship against atheistic communism.

viaro:
On a more serious note, the subject of persecution is not such a light thing. Many religious people suffer untold persecution under atheist regimes - for no other reason than having religious beliefs. We know many atheists would like to just keep that obvious example hush-hush, but toneyb, if you give any bit of seriousness to the reality of atheistic persecution of religious people, I doubt this thread would have been cast in the frivolous manner as appear in your OP.

This is absolutely right. There may be people who suffer from a persecution complex, but religious persecution is real. It is brutal. People have been mobbed, beaten, jailed, tortured and murdered. It was bad in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries during the Communist era. As we speak here, it is going on in Eritrea, where the government recognizes only three faiths – Catholic, Moslem and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. Protestant Christians and other religious minorities face horrible persecutions daily and these include beatings, imprisonment, sexual assault and murder. I doubt toneyb would write the op the way he did if he knows the extent of this problem. Persecution is much more serious than people having beliefs questioned.

Congrats JeSoul. Getting in the word early: if I misbehave I hope you will remember my past good behaviours and treat me with kid gloves.  

InesQor:
We're splitting hairs jare.

Yes, we are splitting hairs.

So is all of this necessary? It is hard to answer that yes or no. PastorAIO said people are free to believe what they like, except where it causes problems. I think the way we perceive God and our relationship with him, as demonstrated by the stories in the Bible, can have a great impact on our lives.

For example, the other day the governor of a troubled state peeped out of his window and saw some crazy men armed with dangerous weapons heading towards a village. According to his own account, he hastily put through a call to some army general who is supposed to be in charge of security. And did he make follow up calls or send his own security men to the area with instructions? No. The retired air force general went off to sleep! The army general probably went off to sleep, too, because at midnight someone woke up our Excellency with a phone call to tell him that his subjects were being burnt alive and bludgeoned to death. He did not say what he did next, but I can bet he went back to sleep. The following morning he woke up and told the world to blame the army for the sectarian killings.  And then he quickly declared a three-day fasting and prayer, asking his subjects to ask God to restore peace to the state!

This is what religion has reduced us to. Or, this is what we have reduced religion to. People expect God to handle things for them like he allegedly did for the Israelites. This is not the fault of the Bible but the way we understand it.

e36991:
@MyJoe

It is Lev 11:6 and not Lev 11:16

Thank you!

e36991: [size=14pt]About the Hare[/size]

The European Hare or Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) is a species of hare native to northern, central, and western Europe and western Asia.

It is a mammal adapted to temperate open country. It is related to the similarly appearing rabbit, which is in the same family but a different genus. It breeds on the ground rather than in a burrow and relies on speed to escape.

It is larger, longer-eared, and longer-legged than a rabbit. It has a body size of 50-70 cm and a tail length of 7-11 cm. The weight for a full-grown adult ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 kg. It can run at speeds of up to 72 km/h (45 mi/h). It is strictly herbivorous. [size=14pt]It eats grasses and herbs during the summer months but changes to[/size] feeding on twigs, bark, and the buds of young trees in winter, making it a pest to orchard farmers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/European_Hare#p003b0qr

Herbivorous = an animal that eats grass
cud-chewing = the act of bringing up into the mouth to chew again what was eaten previously.

Krayola:
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.


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* 

I agree with highlighted. There is no reason for us to think that the Bible has ever been inerrant, but that does not mean it cannot serve as a spiritual guide.

nuclearboy:
@MyJoe:

Human imagination? You would explain Nostradamus looking 500 years into the future with "his imagination"? Come on Bro, lets not move away from our keyboards and join Arthur and the Knights of the roundtable.

Arthurian legend? Maybe if the Brits wrote the Good Book…. I guess I ought to have listened to myself and not get drawn into this curious and laborious involvement in minutiae that I have tried to avoid from beginning of thread. Anyway, I am stuck with it now.  If you look at the cases I mentioned, I am sure you will agree they all appear to show the Bible to be in error at first glance. But we all know that things are not always what they appear to be. Hence a careful examination of the facts is required.

When I spoke of human imagination, I was not “explaining” Nostradamus or offering any comment on him or any other specific case for that. I am yet to study him in detail and so am not in a position to offer an informed opinion on his work. I am talking here about the Bible. That the human imagination is infinite cannot be denied by anyone. I have already stated that this does take away the possibility of real supernatural phenomena, of which Nostradamus, Rev King, or my granny, could be conduits for all I know. What I owe to myself is the obligation to look into their claims and see if it is their imagination or something else.

nuclearboy: And why cannot a guy become King at 42 when his father died at 40 - do you have proof that he became king the day after his dad passed?

Yeah. But this ^^^ is too obvious. You can verify for yourself that there was no long interregnum between the two kings by reading 2 Chron 20-22 and the corresponding account in 2 Kings.

Here is Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah
2 Chronicles 21:20 (KJV)
20Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

And here is Ahaziah (aka Jehoahaz):
2 Chronicles 22:1-2 (KJV)
1And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Actually this is not a particularly strong point on its own. I included it because it just helps to explain some of the points one made earlier about human handling. The Hebrew word used in 2 Chron 22:2 is “two and forty” in some Septuagints, and “two and twenty” in some others.

Thus this is what you find in the NIV
2 Chronicles 22:1-2 (NIV)
1 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.
2 Ahaziah was twenty-two [a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.
Footnotes:
a. 2 Chronicles 22:2 Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2 Kings 8:26) Hebrew forty-two

So what we have here is either a case of human error on the part of the writer(s) which some copyists tried to correct by inserting “two and twenty” in their Septuagints, or the “two and forty” Septuagints are wrong, that is, some copyists made the error. This becomes clear when you consider the corresponding record in 1 Kings 8:26 which reports Ahaziah’s age as 22.  That is why we have some Bible translators translate the Chron age as 42, while others say 22 – and the latter translations include some of the most respected like NASB and The Message.

nuclearboy: Your half mill and 1.2Mill puzzle me - unlikely DOES NOT MEAN impossible, does it?

No, it doesn’t. But in the case of 500,000 being killed in a battle where swords and spears were used and populations were far smaller than we have now, it is. It is quite impossible. It is not possible. It is not feasible. As for 1.2 million adult Jewish men being deployed in one battle around 2,600 years ago, it is far fetched. Not up to the task of digging up figures of ancient populations, contemporary war records and the like right now.

nuclearboy: And now I come to the issue of God's Nature - why do people feel they ought to be able to define God or His Character? Once, Moses asked Him about Himself and His response was "I AM THAT I AM". You speak of nature - are you a murderer? Did you ever swat a fly or use insecticide? What court did those cockroaches appeal to for recompense - did you create them? Yet Bro, they had no recourse but to die and that ended the matter. Why is it that when God acts, we decide to judge - what criteria are you using, please and who's your advocate and who's the judge?

No, I am not putting God in a box. In fact, I think it is wrong to do that. For I believe it is futile to go defining God. But it is the religions – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc – that are primarily in the business of claiming to know everything or almost everything about God. And what a job they are making of defining God! That said, I believe I am allowed to have an idea of God like everyone else, for not to do that would beggar my belief in Him. In my view, the Bible’s description of God as becoming whatever he decides to, and the one whose ways cannot be questioned, are good descriptions of the Universal Sovereign. But the Bible also ascribes certain attributes to God and one of them is Justice. All I am saying here is that my simple beliefs about God which conform perfectly with this:
Genesis 18:25, NIV
Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
are at pains to reconcile God with the erratic, hot-tempered, unpredictable one said to have sanctioned all those bad things in the OT – from the outright deceit of people in order to kill them to human sacrifices. I believe you, like everyone reading this, has full knowledge of what I am talking about, so I will not cite examples here. Besides, this issue is a bit over flogged.

Mosquitoes and cockroaches, you see, don’t cut it. This borders on my understanding or beliefs about creation which is not the subject matter here. But since you brought it up, let me touch a little on it. Do you know why the cockroaches I swat don’t sue for recompense? Because they can’t. Everything that exists in creation is a part of the working out of the perfect will of God. It is called Harmony. I can’t recall the lifespan of a mosquito, but I don’t think it is more than a few days. You see, man eats chickens. Chickens eat mantises. The mantis eats smaller insects. Man cultivates the grasses that provide food for those insects. Am I the aggressor here? No. for every mosquito I swat, one survives to perpetuate their species, and she does so on my blood. For every cockcroach I kill, one survives, and it does so on what it eats on my bill. I believe the world is perfect the way it is. Even with man, things are the way they are meant to be. For in the case of rational man, God (1) gave free will (2) instituted the law of sowing and reaping. That is why Genesis 18:25 tells us that God will always do right. But when someone comes up to say God justifies the killing of people in a manner that plainly defeats the ends of justice, I do not swallow that. What is made plain from such accounts is a Judeocentric worldview that does not deny justice but defines it in terms of what is good for the “chosen”.

I think our (you and I) different positions here are based on the way our minds have been conditioned, which brings us back to the matter of faith in a book (refer to my point of disagreement with JeSoul), but there is a possibility, too, that the fact there are different things different human beings can live with plays a role here. For instance, just yesterday my contractor friend, a fire-spouting born-again Christian, was telling me that someone gave a card to one of the SW governors and told the Excellency that he (my friend) was his person and should be looked upon with favour in respect of award of civil works contracts. My friend said he has not found out whom the person is but he knows it is the work of God – he isn’t even seriously trying to find out because he think it might have been an angel! Now how God can involve Himself in influence peddling beats me, but my friend has no problem with that little matter at all! When I raise it he reminds me that it was someone who put in a word for Joseph. Now, how the needs of a very wealthy 21st century Nigerian capitalist matches those of a peasant Hebrew, who according to the story, was sent on a mission to save the whole humanity from being wiped out by hunger is impossible for me to see. I can see that you, nuclearboy, like some people I know, do not have the problems I have with these parts of the Bible. That is fine. We can disagree on that.

nuclearboy: The intelligence you have makes you feel you've a case against who??

I’m not sure about "intelligence” and I have not a case against God. What I do feel is that I have a case against the things attributed to God by the Bible. I feel God is above parochial business. I feel one can easily guess why those things are in the Bible. I feel that if the Yoruba had written the Good Book, we would have seen Ogun subjugating neighouring tribes at the feet of Oranmiyan, Sanponna wiping out whole tribes with small pox, Oro reveling in human sacrifice, with Obatala and Ifa doing tones of good things.

nuclearboy: At risk of being accused of fitting my case to the evidence, can anyone prove that the "hare" of Biblical times is what we call the hare today?

“Biblical times”? Are you suggesting that the hare may have lost its cud-chewing trait through natural selection since 3000 years ago? In Darwinism, it would take 3 million years, possibly less, but certainly not 3000 years, for that to happen.

nuclearboy: I have asked on this forum that if the entire human race lived in Asia at the time of the flood, would they have been wrong to say the flood covered the whole world? What was the world to them? was it not Asia? We agree that not everything fits our sensory understanding but you ought accept that in lieu of absolute 100% undisputable uncontestable proof or rather until proved guilty, the defendant is considered innocent - abi the Bible needs must be castigated at all costs?

I can’t see the point you have made here – or may be I don’t understand it. I have not questioned the flood anywhere in this thread, so I cannot be accused of using it to put down the Bible at all costs. Yes, anyone can prove that the hare of Biblical times is what we call the hare to day. Historians, archaelogists, Bible scholars, and Bible translators – from KJV to NASB, agree there are only two possibilities for the Hebrew word used there: the hare and the rabbit. (It will surprise you the trouble these Bible translators go through to find out about these things so you don’t place a tiger in Lagos when there has never been.) Neither of them chews the cud. What some Bible apologists have done is make a desperate search for other animals to substitute – not a single one of them has succeeded, as none of the animals they came up with chews the cud.

To tell you the truth, I find that whole passage of the Bible intriguing, seeing as whoever wrote Leviticus got it right with almost all the animals. The hygiene recommendations were also ahead of their time in many respects. These are great pluses for the Bible. (But they do not necessarily prove anything supernatural, as you will agree if you take some time to study the Maya Civilisation that flourished in South America for 2000 years up till around 900AD.) There are several verses people dig up to put down the Bible unduly and I always take issues with them – like that thread where Abuzola was saying the Bible says the earth is flat while the Quran says it is round. The sunrise thing is another case in point of that sort of thing. But where there is a prima facie case of error, I think it is not too much to look at it as it is rather than defend the Bible at all costs.

nuclearboy: You know, I wondered about this statement of Jesus that you mentioned - I'm still looking for an answer to it. But then, so are you 

No, I will leave it to you. I am not the one who has made the Bible his own and am yet to find that that verse has anything to do with me! I have read tonnes of stuff written on this single verse by the Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs have probably written more on this verse than any other in the entire Bible. In fact, you can say their theology revolves around it. The problem is that they change their understanding of the verse every few years or so. Today, it means this. Tomorrow, it means that. All in an effort to repudiate what appears to be obvious: a clear prophecy which did not come to pass.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=413985.msg5774404#msg5774404 date=1269626582]You are welcome and have a lovely weekend! Stay blessed.[/quote]I wish you and JeSoul, InesQor, nuclearboy, toneyb, Zodiac61 and everyone else here the same.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=413985.msg5774282#msg5774282 date=1269625301]If evidence supports the IF,  sincere human beings or scientists will change his views to accomodate the evidence. What is important is the Truth and if the Truth is that all existing understanding of physical realities are wrong, then a sincere scientist or person follows this new found truth. The same holds true for spiritual realities as well. But holding a view based on "IF"  especially where all known evidence points to the contrarly of the "IF" is in my view an act of denial. Stay blessed.[/quote]Thank you!

nuclearboy:
I get your point, MyJoe. I think where there is an issue is in the defining of the word "Faith".

So what is faith? Is it just belief in anything I feel like believing in? Or is it something realistic? Can my belief that you, MyJoe, are "God", be called faith? Grammatically, it is evidence of things not yet seen (WHICH THOUGH EXIST AND ARE TRUE!). The part in caps is the Christian part and our evidence is our problem - yet its real!

Now, my "faith" that you are "MyJoe", whatever that is, is true, BECAUSE YOU ARE! The problem arises when I try to prove that "faith" to anyone since it is not supported by tangible evidence.

I think there is tangible evidence.

nuclearboy: We find people having individual "personal" experiences which only they understand - so they believe such but those who have not had such experiences find them strange, ridiculous, funny etc.

Yes. And we go on with lines like “the human imagination is very powerful”. It is. Having unshakable belief in something can spin off all sorts of illusions and life-like experiences. Five people can see one thing and report it differently. I am not saying that is the case with ALL religious experiences, (I don’t know it is), but just offering you the other possibility – one that has been widely observed.

nuclearboy: When reality points to a statement/understanding/idea being obviously wrong but we find people believing in it, we know thats not faith but delusion. Show me delusion in the Bible by proving the opposite of its claims and bro, I'll  be on your side like white on ice!

I think your thoughts here are based on the premise that I have a problem with faith. I don’t. Take the virgin birth mentioned by JeSoul for instance. I don’t believe it, but I realize that the fact I don’t believe something does not mean it is not true. For an incredible thing like that, the problem is fundamental – the Bible itself, since that is the book that reports the virgin birth. For me, therefore, the virgin birth cannot be treated in isolation. Once you accept the Bible, you accept it, at least, you are expected to. That is why I insist we can leave that unverifiable bit and take a moment aside to look at that which can be verified.

Your challenge is, IMO, not very useful because there are a lot of statement/understanding/idea in the Bible that are obviously wrong, but if I present them, then what? Most of them are overflogged and anything can be rationalized away!

For example I can remind you there is a guy in the Bible whose father died at 40 and he himself became king at forty-two – meaning he was two years older than his father!
Or that that story about 500,000 Israelites being killed in a single battle simply beggars imagination as that has never happened in a single battle even in WWII when we had sophisticated weaponry and atom bomb was used at a point, not to talk of the other place where 1,200,000 Jewish men were mobilized in a single battle!

Personally, my biggest concern about the Bible is its inconsistency with the nature of Supreme God. In the Bible we see God involving himself in wanton killings, deceiving people in order to destroy them, (2Th 2:11-12), giving out bad laws (Ez 20:25), deceiving the prophets (Jer 20:7, Ez 14:9), etc. In related developments, the Bible's history has been shown to be unreliable. While it posses remarkable scientific accuracy in several places, it falls flat in several others, for in the Bible, for instance, we are told that the hare is a cud-chewing animal (Lev 11:16).

And perhaps anyone has an explanation for the prophecy by Jesus that those listening to him would not all die before his return? (Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27)

The sum of what I have learnt about the Bible, much of which has been discussed in this thread, is sufficient for me to believe that I need to reckon with more than the Bible in my efforts to make sense of things. When you look at the Bible in total, without faith playing a role, it just does not add up as being infallible. As I stated earlier, I agree with you fully on the matter of perspectives. But what about the person without a worldview to defend? I have no shadow of doubt the evidence would weigh against an inerrant Bible for anyone who had not been previously introduced to religion.

nuclearboy: BTW, I give you kudos, for in all your posts, I see intelligent sincerity rather than the easy but myopic ridicule most use to cover their ignorance or fear that maybe, they are wrong. I would give same to Krayola but the fact he hasn't allowed me drop kick him has me miffed at his black canadian bottom  

I think honesty is basic, and not an achievement worth celebrating. A man who has lost it has nothing to live for except work hard to cultivate it.

nuclearboy:
@MyJoe:

I doubt you got the gist of what Jesoul said else how you can disagree with it beats me. Basically, she says "it is logical for a Christian to read what he/she reads into the Bible". However and at the same time, it is also reasonable what an atheist/unbeliever sees in it. IMO, the idea is that both come with a different agenda and thus find different truths in the Word.

Sincerely (and I think many "so called" Christians will castigate me for this) I believe that being on "this" side compels that one considers the evidence with a bit of bias which helps justify much of what is in print. That however, is not a bad thing as each of us ALWAYS chooses themselves over others and seen from this point of view, we are not being dishonest, only trusting! Where the supposed "opponent" sees a half empty cup, we see a half full one! Which of us is wrong? I dare anyone to tell me I am wrong when they cannot "prove" they are right! If we had 100% proof of everything, all of you would be Christians, wouldn't you?

I agree completely with the two paragraphs above.

nuclearboy: That is why we look at the Bible as a message that comes off the pages and becomes truth, a personal experience, a reality to be found "individually" rather than as a herd. God is mine and I am His, a father to me and that is what concerns me, not whether He is same to others, choosing His Anointed, loving them who follow and trust Him.

This is a statement of faith which I cannot dispute. But you will agree with me that people of different religions all say this and they can’t all be “right”. That is why every non-sharer of your faith does not simply take it from you when you tell her how real it is to you, having experienced it. I hope this helps explain my position to you.

What I understand JeSoul to be saying, the part I disagree with, is that whether the evidence proves the authenticity of the Bible or disproves it does not matter because the Christian does not rely on such terrestrial proofs. He relies on the power of the Bible in his life, that is, the words come alive as the individual Christian experiences their power… or something like that.

And my response is: I disagree that a book should be accepted on faith because we know that faith can be misleading, considering the fact that there are sincere people of faith in all the religions of the world and they can’t all be right. Therefore, when considering which holy book to rely on, or, as in this case, the extent to trust it, we cannot afford to discard material evidence (and common sense!). That is, the Christian will do well to pay attention to the evidence, which will help him to see if the Bible is (1) infallible, and (2) does contain everything. This is important because if the Bible is not inerrant and does not contain everything there are consequences – (1) there may be biblical doctrines that are not true, (2) there may be non-biblical doctrines that are true.

Enigma:
Yep, agreed InesQor.

A lady made one use of Genesis 18:25 that has always stuck with me. The passage says:

[size=14pt]Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?[/size]

Brilliant!

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=419596.msg5771600#msg5771600 date=1269603154]My view is that the answer to the OP statement lies in what creatures do in heaven and the requirements necessary to qualify for admission to heaven as well as conscious participation in the activities. If one wants to be a neurosurgeon, then one has to go to medical school to acquire basic medical skills and then undergo specialist training in neurosurgery. If he or she has succesfully acquired the requisite skills, then he or she is a neurosurgeon and can work as a neurosurgeon. The same is true for all professions or work. Now, can a child that is just born and dies shortly after birth be a neurosurgen? Can a person who at age  5 had an accident and slipped into coma become a neurosurgen? Can a medical student who got rusticated from the medical school due to poor results be a neurosurgen? Can a pilot who have not qualified as a neurosurgen become one? Even if by some irrational decision, these non nerosurgeons engage in brain surgery, then the outcome will be a disaster. What I am simply saying is that if righteousness, love, humility, purity etc are activities that creatures do in heaven, then they must acquire these abilities prior to admittance to heaven. Thus human beings cannot just go to heaven simply because, it apparently seems that they have no opportunity to learn and practice the will of God. Just like you cannot pass or fail a student because he did not sit for an exam. To pass or fail, the student must have the opportunity to sit for the exam and prove his or her competence or incompetence. Thus, if a baby dies in utero, where does he get the chance to learn and practice the  the will of God including the recongnition of Jesus? If a man is born with madness where does he get the chance to learn and practice the will of God? If a child slipped into coma, where is the chance for such a child to learn and practice the will of God etc.[/quote]Good day, M_Nwankwo, and thanks for your good perspectives.

OLAADEGBU:
Biblical Accuracy
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12).

Many who profess to be Christian intellectuals today are arguing that we should defer to the evolutionists in matters of science and history, since the real message of the Bible is spiritual.  The Genesis account, for example, is not meant to give us details of the events of creation, for scientists can give us this information.  It merely assures us that God is somehow behind it all.  But if this were all that God meant to tell us, its very first verse is enough for that!  What is the need to describe all the days and acts of creation at all if the record has no real relevance to history or science?

As the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus in our text verse, if we cannot trust God's Word when it relates "earthly things," how can we possibly rely on its testimony of "heavenly things"?  To some extent we can check for ourselves whether or not it is accurate when it records facts of history and processes of nature, but we have no means at all of determining whether it speaks the truth when it deals with heaven and hell, with salvation and eternal life, or with God's purpose for the world in the ages to come.

The fact is that the Bible is accurate in all matters with which it deals, scientific and historical as well as spiritual and theological.  It is a dangerous thing to listen to these modern "pied pipers" of evangelicalism whose self-serving compromises with evolutionary scientism have already led multitudes of young people astray in our Christian colleges and seminaries.

We yet may not have all the answers to alleged problems in the Bible, but we can be absolutely sure of God's Word.  When the answers are found, they will merely confirm what He has said all along.  He is able and willing to speak the truth, and He means what He says! HMM

The part I have highlighted in blue is the meat of this write-up, but unfortunately it is clear the writer does not believe it, himself.

I also agree with him on the Nicodemus bit in red. If the Bible is found to err in the earthly things, the least we can do is thread with care in the heavenly things it contains.

JeSoul:
Forget Sierra Mist, this is so refreshing, infact it should be bottled up, labelled in the dopest font available, the nutrition contents should read "100% Awesome", then shipped out all around to world to both religious and non-religious alike. And if you think I am flattering you, think in reverse. "I don't know" is the one phrase we all should use most often.

JeSoul: I have one issue with the above and it is highlighted.

I understand your objection, but for the people I have been opportune to observe at close quarters, I am yet to find one exception.

JeSoul: That is a perfectly logical way of approaching the issue, perfectly logical. However, I must defer to Nuclearboy's position, it wouldn't matter if it were discovered tomorrow that the bible was written in a cave, underneath a well, buried in a mountain by Swedish-Yoruba-Asians who were descendants of American Indians from Yaba in California. It wouldn't matter.

Yeah, but this is not in issue.

JeSoul: Because to a christian, its authenticity is not based on tangible proof that can be acquired and verified by independent sources, but rather its the actual words themselves, it is the text itself, the power in the words therein, they have jumped off the pages and become real in our lives - that is our logical proof for accepting it independent of historical evidence - [b]whether they compliment or stand in opposition to it. [/b]And the man who chooses not to accept it because he hasn't experienced that power is also acting logically himself.

I have problems with this which I have already expressed - not the faith concept, but accepting something on faith in the face of evidence to its contrary. I guess that is where we disagree most fundamentally. 

JeSoul: I pretty much agree with you here. I can only assume Noetic mis-spoke or meant to assert otherwise? Noetic forgive me if you've already cleared this up in subsequent posts.

You are the first Christian to spot the problem with this, so far. I was beginning to ask myself what the brave Christians who have been jailed, beaten or murdered trying to get Bibles to “unsaved” people in “unsaved” lands will make of this thread. Or how Dr Luke will feel, seeing as he spent good time writing his gospel so The Right Honourable Theophilus may read and become a Christian.

JeSoul: Yes indeed it will be the honest thing - for those who first accepted it based on its correlation with archeaological findings. For someone like me (who happens to actually fancy archeaology) *shrugs her shoulders* it really makes no difference. And I hope you find that to be an honest position.

It is a position capable of leading one astray. Amiss. Afield. Awry.

JeSoul: You know, I think you would be suprised, many of us would be, if we really knew how many christians have questioned and are questioning the bible. I am one. I come across verses and stories that leave me scratching my head, leave me sliding back and forth on the entire length of the emotional spectrum, ranging from confusion, to bewilderment, to fear, to disbelief and yes even anger sometimes.

Yeah. I am much more comfortable with Christians who, on being asked why God killed children who were just being children by making fun of Elisha, or struck Uzzah dead, simply say, "there are some things in the Bible I can't make sense of, but it doesn't affect my faith" than those who writhe, wriggle, stretch their cerebral veins to bursting points, and make nonsense of common sense, trying to justify these acts.

JeSoul: But there is this thing, an intangible, incommunicable element that reassures me (and I'm sure other believers) that inspite of the fact complete understanding escapes my limited faculties, I can still wholeheartedly trust it, and that what is hidden from us now, will be made manifest someday. I guess the element is faith, working in collaboration with the Holy Spirit.

There are other explanations - but that is where we disagree! 

JeSoul: I hope alla dat ^^^ makes some sense.

A whole lot of it!

4 Play:
To be fair, I don't think Obama was ever particularly enamoured by Israel so the faux pax by Bibi is being used as an opportunity to express long held reservations about Israel.

Can you explain this ^^^ position, with facts, please?

The news I have is that the UK is expelling an "Israeli diplomat" - that is different from expelling the ambassador. This is a classic timid British response to a reprehensible act - more like Chamberlain than Churchill. They ought to expel the Israeli ambassador and close their embassy in Tel Aviv as a starting point.

davidylan:
you've been watching too much Fox news. How does it take away from the quality of healthcare? Pls explain.

1. Even in single-payer health care systems it isnt free. You pay taxes for it.

2. How has single-payer diminished quality of health care in France? It is #1 for quality of health care in the world, the US is #37.

you're just confused and parroting talking points you heard from somewhere.

Your last line says - "If everything is free, it diminishes the quality" . . . then you say "It means more taxation". Which is it? Free or taxation?
Where did you hear that you would be taxed more? Do you earn close to $250,000 a yr?

Absolute nonsense.

and this is the fault of this bill how?

How does the bill affect your own quality of care?

What rubbish. Health care works in Germany, Canada, France e.t.c. they have better health care indices than the US by a very clear margin.

that you really dont know what you're talking about and you shld stick to the romance threads.

Where in the bill did you read this?

Well said.

JeSoul:
you're just too kind.
  Oh okay. I forced my brain to track back and read the discussion. So OLA is saying about "one taken in the night, the other in the day" is evidence the earth is round and you said its simply implying "it would occur when people would be doing different things or in different places"  and then you mentioned its highlighted original mss do not contain that portion in Luke and OLA says but its in Matt - is that right?

Highlighted doesn't even appear anywhere - even if we reckon with the contentious verse. But, yes, that's what he is saying.

JeSoul: I'm still of the opinion it makes no difference either way. I can understand why OLA would draw that conclusion about rotation as I guess it can be derived from that verse if taken in the most literal of senses and applied to the 3rd power. But to that I say what does it matter either way? Another signpost?  (used with permission from imhotep)

Quite unsure it doesn't matter, seeing as it has muddled up things for OLA.  If you remove that verse (36) from Luke, that portion of the Bible suddenly becomes harmless to OLA. Minus verse 36 might appear to mean that Luke reports night while Matthew reports day, which some might consider contradictory. By adding 36, someone was transporting something from Matthew to Luke to form a sham synthesis. That person was being dishonest, to say the least.

^^^ And with perfect grace, she walks in! 

JeSoul:

---

OLAADEGBU,
  I'm too lazy to read thru the last page or two. Can you please in a nutshell summarize your argument on the missing/omitted verse thingy?

OLAADEGGBU has no argument on that. He is simply saying I should consign all the Bibles that state the fact there was an interpolation, or put a dash in that verse, to the Thames and revert to the “authorized” versions which contain verse 36 without informing us of the matter.

Commander viaro
Colonel toba,

This is Admiral MyJoe. I request permission to enter thread order you two to attention to salute me!

OLAADEGBU:
Because birds of the same feather flock together.

Ok. But it would have been more "honest" to address the vacation issue.

OLAADEGBU: You will surely have some 'christians' compromising with you there but the manuscripts used for my Bible is complete unlike yours that use the missing manuscripts.

I find your attitude on this strange - condemning a Bible translation for daring to reveal the truth, just because that throws a spanner in your works of trying to force into a scriptural verse what it does not say? Ok. What translations do you trust? The "authorised" versions. Authorised by whom? The Church at an era it was run by gangsters that would make Al Capone or Frank Lucas look like choir boys? If it is the KJV, are you aware that its translation of 1 John 5:7 has since been denounced as a fraud? Since you respect learning, considering your reference to Dr Luke, what do you have against the NIV which was translated by over 100 people, all Christians and the majority of them with PhDs in biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek? Or the NASB whose translators have been praised by all for their attention to details? What do you have against The Message and other translations which leave out verse 36 altogether or put a dash in it? OIC, you trust the Evidence Bible - which is hardly a translation at all, but a highly theologised sectarian paraphrase, a faith digest with no serious endorsement.

OLAADEGBU: Luke 17:36 says: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Matthew 24:40 "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

The difference between the two verses are like the differences between six and half a dozen.

I don't know about six and half a dozen, but there is NO difference at all in the two statements you pasted above! You should have pasted all the verses under contention.
1. Matthew says nothing at all about time and gives you nothing to latch on to in this violent project of yours.
2. The facts say there was no Luke 36. Dr Luke did not write it!
3. Even if we accept the counterfeit verse, it does not support a rotating earth - he was depicting the fact that like the Days of Noah people would be nonchalant, carrying on their normal activities and thus be taken unawares.

OLAADEGBU: I don't expect you or toneyb to see the sun since you insist on using those evolutionary goggles.

Are you not the man said in another thread that God put contradictions in the Bible to ensnare skeptics and roast them in hell? Maybe . . .

OLAADEGBU: Why not the other way round? If an event is reported in Matthew, does that give someone the licence to omit it in Luke?

Because it is this way round.

Pastor AIO:
Who's McRay?  Is he an authority?  I'm surprised that you are making reference to an authority other than the bible and to archaeologists.  Anyway sha, what he says is absolutely wrong.  Luke is not scrupulously accurate in the least.  He most likely twisted facts in order to promote his  agenda.  I say most likely because it was either he was a liar or Paul was a liar.

The hypocrisy in highlighted part is all too common.

Pastor AIO: His account of Paul's movement is at variance with Paul's account of his movement.  Of course Paul could have been lying about where he went etc and Luke telling the truth.  But if we accept that maybe no one was intentionally lying but an honest mistake had occurred then we must accept Paul's account as more factual after all Paul would know best about where he'd been and what he'd done. 
Acts

Galatians

Who was lying, Paul or Luke?  After his conversion did Paul go to Jerusalem or did he not go to Jerusalem?  He claims that he didn't even reach Jerusalem till 3 years after he'd converted to christianity.  Luke said that when he fled from Damascus he went to Jerusalem and met the apostles and stayed with them. 
Is that Luke's scrupulous historical accuracy?  If there is intentional mendacity then is it more likely to have been Luke's or Paul's.  Both had strong agendas that they were trying to push.  Paul swore before God that his version was no lie.  That is a strong way to put it.  'I swear before God that what I am writing you is not a lie'.

OLAADEGBU has answered this here. I do not think he meant to say that the Bible is meant for dolts, though, since no Christian would deliberately say that.

OLAADEGBU:
If you are a bit honest to yourself [b]you must recollect that your bone of contention was the allegation that verse 36 was not included in your so called "early mss" [/b]and not a case of night and day that toneyb is confused about.

How does agreeing with toneyb's point erase the "bone of contention"?  

1. Verse 36 was missing from early mss - I am not the one saying so.
2. Matthew 24:40-41 says different things as this discussion goes, not the same, like you say.
3. The bottom line is that the speaker was not implying earth rotation, but the fact that people would be different situations and circumstances.

OLAADEGBU: How then did it appear in Matthew 24:40-41

If an event is reported in Matthew, does that give someone the license to insert it in Luke? If the point you are now trying to make is valid, why did you not cite Matthew the first time, instead of Luke? Is it not because Matthew on its own does not serve the purpose to which you summon it, and Luke,  minus verse 36, does not serve it?

??

InesQor:
NO! A man shouldn't have a gun, he should have GUNS in his house, a full arsenal. All licensed, though, otherwise you are on your own!

Besides, he should have an electrified fence issuing with sparks, with bright neon lights warning people off the fence at risk of instant death by electrocution. Only foolhardy criminals will ignore that. The fence will be automatically activated every night but can be deactivated from indoors if you have late night visitors.

He should have at least 4 thoroughbred well-trained guard-dogs to man, in the least, the corners of the house.

If he is designing the house himself, he should have set out to have an underground chamber secretly connecting to all the bedrooms, no matter how small the chamber is, so that at the first indication of trouble, the family, or at least the weaker members of the family can go and hide underground first of all. Lives are more important than possessions.

There should be a tamper-proof alarm on the fence, connected to a mobile phone, that calls the police immediately the security is breached. We know that Nigerian Police will take their time, but at least let them arrive to clear up the mess.

You should have solid steel doors and bulletproof glass windows. Unfortunately, a good dose of a 92% concentrated sulfuric acid is enough to tear down the steel door, and as for the glass, the acid will make it possible to heave it inwards because the glass particles will dissociate. Transparent kevlar composites are currently being researched, and they may be used in lieu of real glass.

By the time the criminals breach the security and they are handling the dogs, and before they get to the steel doors to tear it down with acid, the man has sent his family to the underground chambers and geared himself up for a battle.

The house design will incorporate a pipe that leads into the lounge (the place where the robbers will get to before they can force their way into the main house). this lounge will have a retractable steel door that can glide smoothly across to shut itself. So when they get past the first steel door, they are in the lounge, and stepping in will activate the steel door, it will slide across and shut them in the lounge, then canisters of sleeping gas will be tossed in through the pipes. I doubt that they would be prepared with gas masks, but JUST in case we have any tough daredevils who manage to get past that as well and break past the lounge, the man of the house would be waiting for them in the living room, wearing his own gas mask.

The lights in the living room will be off, and the lounge is flooded with light so as the robbers stumble out of the gasified area they can hardly see you but you can see them clearly. From the owner's dark position of advantage, he can start taking them out. Shoot all their hands, arms, and legs and render them useless!!!

By this time, the police should have arrived, otherwise, just activate the last hidden security door locking the robbers in the living room, go underground to finish your sleep and in the morning we'll know who's the robbers' daddy. 

---

But most of all, the family needs to have absolute faith in God so that any of the machinery does not jam someday.

Jeez! Was planning to come rob your house this weekend. Got to find some place else.

Pastor AIO:
Eh hen, the preemptive strike argument.  The source of so many atrocities in the world.  It is okay to kill a child if that child is likely to grow up to become a mass murderer.  It is okay to kill a child if that child will one day have children that will grow up to be mass murderers.  In fact it is okay to kill a child if one of that child's grandchildren will one day befcome a mass murderer. 
God should havbe just killed ADam way back in the garden of Eden as that would have stopped a lot of mass murderers being born. 

THis is obviously the manner of thinking of the pathologically paranoid.  Sick people. Practicing  sick religion.

Now, this is how you do it in Sicily. The Don calls the hitman into his chamber and, consiglieri looking on, says a few words in low tones from the side of his mouth. In four hours, the hitman reports back to the consiglieri. That one looks at him bleakly. It was his first job, so he understands the mistake. He tells him something in low tones. The hitman quickly returns to the scene to find the kid who had run away when he shot its father and mother. . .

OLAADEGBU:
You are free to believe what you want, a simple cross checking with other references would clear the matter.  Mattheew 24:40-41 for instance repeats the same statement.  I advise that you always crosscheck especially with the authorised versions before you jump to conclusions.

OLAADEGBU:
Don't let anybody deceive you regarding the gospel according to Dr. Luke.  This is someone's recommendation about the historical accuracy and authencity of the gospel.

"Given the large portion of the New Testament written by him, its extremely significant that Luke has been established to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details.  One prominent archaelologist carefully examined Luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands, finding not a single mistake." -- John McRay

It is possible I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote, because I was not questioning any versions/translations, the authenticity of the gospel of Luke, or the qualification of its physician author. I was talking about manuscripts. Verse 36 is omitted from ancient manuscripts of Luke, suggesting that Luke did NOT write it, as a result of which not all Christians accept it. I am saying that many believe someone inserted that verse, not discrediting the whole gospel. I hope it is clearer now.

I only highlighted this point to draw attention to the manuscript omission and possible interpolation issue which was touched on earlier in this thread: Biblical Inerrancy.

No, given the point of concern here (some sleeping and some waking) Matthew does not repeat Luke. It says nothing at all about night,  or about day for that matter. It just describes a set of activities people will be carrying on when the son of man arrives.

Matthew 24:40,41 (NIV)
40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

toneyb:
You are lying here as usual. The verses say NO such thing. Here is what it says.

Luke 17:34-36
34"I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
35"(A)There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
36"Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."

It specifically says" On that night". It goes on to say that two men will be working on the field. Where did it state that it will occur while [b]some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field? Where was day time mentioned in the passage?[/b] Do people not work at night? Why must you lie to yourself and state things that the bible it self never states? . Keep on lying for Jesus.

You are right, of course. Using that portion of the Bible to come to a definite conclusion that the Bible advances the rotation of the earth is an act of violence.

InesQor: At this point I think I need to agree with noetic.

If you approach the Bible as if it is a textbook of science, you are in the wrong already (like toneyb and the Joshua miracle, at least it was not GOD saying that the sun stopped in the sky, because God knew how things work. It was Joshua, an intelligent man in his own right, who said so).

But if you take the Bible as an instruction guide for your spirit, you will be amazed to see that you will also get other benefits like scientific discoveries therein. Ask Columbus, he did.

I agree fully with you on the matter of that verse of Ecclesiastes, as the literal, literary manner of speaking was sufficient for the teacher in the setting and we all use words that way in our everyday speeches. I did not require the Holy Spirit to see this. A little objectivity or honesty, and nothing else, is all it requires. There are far more serious issues to raise with the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:
If you calm down and humble yourself you might learn a thing or two from the Scriptures.  Luke 17:34-36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field.  This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

Luke 17:34-36 (NIV)
34"I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
35"(A)There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
36["[a](B)Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
Footnotes:
a. Luke 17:36 Early mss do not contain this v

Verse 36 appears to be an interpolation and I would not rely on it either for spiritual guidance or in a debate. I raised this point earlier and JeSoul expressed the view that such verses in Mark and John do not appear to change anything.

@noetic16
You are welcome to think what you like.

Krayola:
haha My point exactly. The original Hebrew translation makes no sense. the different versions in existing Bibles show attempts made to make sense out of something that makes no sense. The stuff I posted shows that it makes perfect sense if u understand what the authors are trying to do when they tell us stuff like that. What their concerns are. Hopefully u read it sometime

It is naive to assume ancient authors understood history like we do, and I was hoping you would actually read that. But as usual u just dismiss stuff.

Genesis one and two  were not written to tell us about the origin of the earth, or of man. They were written to tell us about God's relationship with man, and his position in the universe. The narrative are a means to an end, and not the end in themselves. Sleep well.

Thank you!

_{I don't know the particulars of your case, but you appear to be in a crisis. Considering a similar case that turned tragic a couple of years ago, and having seen a post where you described this as your "life", let me give you some admonition.}

University education is very important, since it often makes the difference between who becomes MD and who becomes a labourer. But it is not do or die. I can write you a long list of people who are highly successful who did not attend a university. And there are countless people who seek the admission you so badly crave but gave it up. Some give it up for pursuits they consider more important. Some give it up because a disease got into them. Others give it up because they have no money.

It all depends on your life objectives. If you want to be a doctor, or lawyer, or teacher, for instance, you require the studies offered at a university or a similar institution. But there are people who are not specific on these. They just want to live a fulfilled and happy life. For them, no university education is really necessary. They can go into business and make all the money they want. It is said that being a university graduate can make you more successful in business – that is academic, as nobody has any evidence to prove that people with advanced degrees are more successful in business than whose who aren’t.

The above said, what you need to do now is calm down. When you calm down you can think constructively and see if there is anything you can still do. An older confidant may be able to help you get through these tough times. Whatever happens, you have to move on. Wise and gifted men who study the laws that operate in creation tell us that it is not usually how much we fight that give us what we want. Your determination and effort are important, no doubt. But after doing your best, what do you have left? The factors you have no control over take over! That is where the grace of God comes in. Christians consider this to be the direct intervention of God. What is certain is that that which you deserve will come to you at the right time. There is nothing you pray for that you (1) deserve and (2) is good for you, that will not come to you. Nothing. God’s time may be different from yours. Whatever may be the general perception around, your life does not depend on a certificate.

All your classmates have gained admission since three years ago, and your parents are beginning to join in the taunts. Just calm down. They know not what they do. I don’t know how old you are, but you sound young. If you are determined to go to university, you will go. There are countless years ahead. If you don’t make it this year, try in the coming year. Meanwhile appreciate the fact that you are not afflicted with a disease or poverty like some who got admission and had to give it all up. Occupy yourself with important things, like trying to develop yourself and be more useful to your family, community, church or mosque.

I have said too many words already. May the grace of God be with you.

Zodiac61:
These do not make any sense at all.  If god inspired the bible, he should have made it easily understandable. Depending on him for complete understand is akin to saying I will interpret the bible according to my moods.
Now I understand why people are not encouraged to read the entirety of the bible. If you are not a christian, it is not meant for you, and by the time you become one it is not necessary. This is the way I read point 2. I am sure that there is some logic there, it just can't be found. In other words, the bible does not make sense. WOW, some insight.
The more you try, the more you tie yourself in knots.

Time was a time highlighted portion had the force of law. The Church leaders kept the Word in Latin and burned at the stake anyone who attempted to translate or distribute it. It was for the elect. This was a law reflecting a Christian position believed to have been brought about through Holy Spirit inspiration.

InesQor: MyJoe, very interesting views you have there. But did you consider what nuclearboy said about the unlimited nature of God? With respect to your post above, I must say that I believe that God, SINCE he knows the end from the beginning, knew the books that the RCC would include, knew the ones they would discard, knew the ones that will be left in the wild, knew the impurities (if any) that would be added, and would have taken care of his own business.

This assertion of mine is based on the presumptions that
(1) God knows the end from the beginning
(2) He is not an author of confusion, and he will not allow His word to go forward without accomplishing its task (i.e. he declares and monitors the efficacy of his own word)
(3) He puts himself on the line with respect to his Word (magnifies his word above his name) i.e. he is a person of high integrity and would not allow his word to get polluted by miscreants.
etc

FORTUNATELY, all the presumptions above are clearly stated within those 66 books that the RCC approved, and the Holy Spirit also bears witness with these three presumptions WITHIN each believer. Thus, what we have in the Bible is enough, but to the increase of knowledge, there is no end; so any other thing seen in this same light of truth is acceptable. My 2 cents!

The above is not unreasonable. In fact, it is reasonable and honest.  I noted what nuclearboy said but what you wrote above is substantially different from it. It runs counter to it. I understand you to be saying: “Whether the Bible is inerrant or not, I believe it is what the all-knowing God wanted me to have; for that reason I believe I can completely trust it for guidance.” This is both an acknowledgement of reason and a statement of belief. There are problems with it I will not pursue. In any case, there is nothing I can say to counter your presumptions or beliefs because disputing someone’s theological beliefs is not usually a useful exercise. I am limiting myself here to that which can be objectively verified. Some of just made the choice to start from this point than from faith.

There are many Christians who realise this somewhat obvious fact that as long as something is passed through human hands, it cannot be inerrant. They are also willing to make an objective review evidences available. Accepting that the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is errant does not make one less of a Christian. It may even make one a better Christian, since he would then be operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.

When you attain this understanding, JeSoul’s position that it is what we do with the message that is important takes on a very real meaning. While you will skip the Mosaic verse telling you to kill your son if he curses you, you will bond with another telling you not to covet your neighbour’s wife. Now, it is possible for three people to read this useful admonition differently:

Senor A will read and say, “well, it says no one should look at my wife’s backside.” Should anyone do he will draw blood. But he will go after other people’s wife. Such a person is already in hell.

Senor B will read and go, “it says I should not covet another man’s wife, lest another man covets mine.” This is the practical approach of the average human being and the average religionist. What we have here is a focus on the letter of the verse.

Senor C will read the same and see both the letter and spirit of it. And so he will not covet another man’s wife and will do that which is in his power to prevent harm from coming to his neighbour’s wife, regardless of what other men in the community do.

noetic16: 1. myjoe, there is the utmost need for objectivity if at all u want to be taken seriously. [/b]I have never disputed the fact ANYONE can make ANY meaning from ANY book including the bible. but [b]if we agree that the bible is from God, then we must also agree that it takes God to understand what He inspired in the bible. . . . . that God is called the HS.

2. it is IMO very unobjective to dismiss the potency of the HS helping people understand the bible simply based on people wwho have lied in the name of God. . . . .I cannot push this any further, but if u must know. . .this sounds . . . .



1. Do not let your drive to win a non-existent debate make u loose focus for objectivity. My position on the bible being for the saved is formed from several notions. . . . but let me start from where u started.

a. The book of Ezekiel and the message of Jonah are prophetic messages. prophecies have absolutely no link to salvation. . . . .prophecies show what God plans to do in the future. . .  .to limit prophecies to the saved is to say that God only has jurisdiction in the company of the saved. So quite unlike your assumption, everyone receives prophetic messages (saved or unsaved) and prophecies DO NOT reflect salvation.

b. Jonah's message to the people of Nineveh was a call to salvation. . .a call to repentance. Jonah did NOT refer anyone to the bible or scriptures. . .

c. u need to really read and understudy the ministry of Paul before u make your FALSE submissions. where was Paul always preaching the gospel?. . .  .he did so in the local synagogue of every city he visited. This implies that the people he preached to were aware of the what was written in the scriptures about the coming of the messiah. . .these people served God under the old covenant but were unaware that a new covenant had been established.
When Paul preached to persons who had no synagogue (persons who were unaware of the old covenant), he NEVER searched or taught from the scriptures like u FALSELY asserted. . . . . .he reasoned with them using intellectual arguments inspired by the spirit. . .read Acts 17:23-32

d. When Jesus said "it is written". . .who was Jesus talking to?. . . .He was talking to pharisees and saducees who were knowledgeable of the scriptures. can u show me anywhere else in the bible Jesus cited the scriptures while preaching to common folks?

2. using the scriptures to get God's intended message requires the help of the holy spirit . . . . . .and to get the holy spirit u need to be saved.

There are many reasons I will not reply the points you made, but I will state just a few of them: (1) I have already addressed some of them (2) Stuff about what you subjectively believe is theology which does not interest me in this thread, it is a derailment and I do not recall agreeing or disagreeing with you on any of them (2) Others smarter than me have tried to show you your error without success (3) Whatever I say you will do a summersault and come back with another seven point agenda, all decorated in bolekaja garbs, to lend credence to your opinion that all Bible was written for the “saved” (4) You already delivered your message long ago about those who must suffer in the afterlife.

But I will like to make the following observations:
i. Anybody who reads your allegation that I dismiss the Holy Spirit because some lied will wonder if it is what I wrote you are commenting on or something else.
ii. Let others judge who is objective; but I do NOT want to be taken seriously by you.

This is very funny.

Mudley313:
n i remember back in superstitous naija, to boost credibility, medicine men usually boast of acquiring their powers from india. we need people like these to come n debunk all the charlatans parading themselves in naija, to the supertitous, gullible n deluded, as people wit so-called divine powers

Yeah. I recall Anini of the Anini Fame was said to have acquired his power from India to turn into a house fly and fly away anytime there were policemen trying to catch him.