₦airaland Forum

So many brilliant replies! I especially like Enigmas' "How then shall this be so, seeing as I am still a virgin". Such a expertly woven lie will leave traces somewhere but this all fits especially with the frankness of it all.

Inesqor has clarified something I didn't think ought take time but which DS jumped upon - punctuations and text that go together. Why again, I ask, would verse 20 be lumped together with 18 and 19? Would you lump 17 with 15 & 16 or is this a case of "selectiveness"?

After all this, you still need to explain how 14% ever became pass mark! That is, of course, assuming that you get the 14% - frankly, the two possibilities you have for marks here are 0% and "nothing".

In addition to the above (overkill ), we have the following

Genesis 24:43 "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass that when the virgin comes out to draw water, and I say to her, "Please give me a little water from your pitcher to drink:""

Would you say Rebekkah was not a virgin too?

Exodus 2:8 "And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the maiden went and called the child's mother."

Slaves serving Aristocracy were not allowed to be non-virgins

Psalm 68:25 "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; Among them were the maidens playing timbrels."

Dem no born you well to be amongst this group if you were not a Virgin

Proverbs 30:19 "The way of an eagle in the air, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the midst of the sea, And the way of a man with a virgin."

Treated above and twisted by Mr Singer

Song of Solomon 1:3 "Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, Your name is ointment poured forth; Therefore the virgins love you."

Self - explanatory

Song of Solomon 6:8 "There are sixty queens And eighty concubines, And virgins without number."

Self - explanatory

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Now clear? ? ?

Firstly, it is instructive that Hebrew Dictionaries translate "almah" as "maid, damsel, virgin"! Then, belief is that almah is derived from alma, a verb meaning "to hide, to conceal". Adam Clarke speculated upon the association between alma and almah: "A virgin , had not been uncovered, she had not known man"

Anyway.

Rabbi Tovia Singer (born on September 20, 1960) is the founder and director of Outreach Judaism, an international organization dedicated to countering the efforts of Christian evangelical groups that specifically target Jews for conversion, like Jews for Jesus.

Thus, your argument comes from a self acclaimed enemy of Christianity whose arguments would therefore be geared towards discrediting Christianity! Anyways, lets look at his argument.

His target is to have 1 in 7? That would be 14.3%. Very intellectual, don't you think? Still, lets look at it.

The good Rabbi says -

"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.” Prov 30: 18 - 20

The Eagle masters the skies whist the skies are placid, innocent and non-participants in its goings to and fro
The serpent shines as it slithers across rocks. Rocks remain placid, innocent and non-participants in its endeavors
A ship cuts through waters, achieving its purpose. Water has no place and like the above is not a participant in the endeavors of the ship

The passage compares the eagle, serpent and ship to a man whist "b'alma" is compared to sky, rock and water. Now tell me, after the Eagle passes in the sky, what effect do you find left in the sky? Of the snake over the rock? Or the Ship thru the waters? Tell me the "after-effect" of such. Then compare to the effect you believe whatever man it was you believed left on Mary!

Compare the situation with the words of the Almighty Himself - "she would be OVER-SHADOWED by the Holy Spirit". Thus God uses exact language detailing her non-participation!

One interesting thing I see here is the desperation of the Singer guy. Why didn't he add Verse 17 or verse 21? Why 20? What relationship does verse 20 have with 18 & 19? But it suits his purpose, I guess.

Horseshit - a case of deciding your position then forcing/twisting existing text to say what supports that position. Thats what I think of Rabbi Singer's words! I have a bit of sympathy for him though - he sees his way of life and support for his position being threatened (he's an orthodox rabbi) and so wants his customers back in his synagogues! We see them here too fighting tooth and nail to keep their clients!

Deep Sight:
do we open a fresh thread to discuss this once and for all - or do we continue here?

Your dear and most loving yonger brother;
In peace and friendship always;

Lawyers! I'd have said you guys are definitely headed for hellfire anyways but Enigma will take me up on that.

Please let NOT my name appear again on the front page - I figure twill be titled "Nuclear destroys DeepSight arguments" or something like that, if I know you. I already feel like a virus afflicting NL, as it is. Discuss it here please, if you will

@thehomer:

I wouldn't wish to interfere with the conversation you're having with Enigma but I noticed this -

thehomer:
You're yet to demonstrate this. Ok here's a direct question. What does the passage on the mustard seed teach? I'm not asking for what it does not teach.

Enigma say "Come now, let us reason together" but you say reasoning is not a part of Christianity yet here you post a question which basically says "suspend reasoning".

[1] A guy has a licensed firearm
[2] He's attacked by a knife weilding individual and had prior knowledge of the attack
[3] He drops his gun and says "In the name of Jesus"

Thats insanity.

[3] He fires at the attackers shoulder and disarms him.

Thats reasoning.

Now, if he didn't have prior knowledge and wasn't armed or able to defend himself or run, your "mustard seed" thingy can move him to epect/demand protection from his prayer.

That is reasoning.

But that is not what the lions in our midst teach. Which is why I said Enigma is not of that mould. There are those who think no matter what they believe in.

@Vesc:

DS owes me NO apology. Frankly, I prefer needlers - they keep you on your feet. With most people here, I wouldn't think much about my reply. With a deliberate needler, any mistake will be blown out of proportion so you sit up.

My problem (and reason for my heckling) was the tendency to "go away for a season" like the devil then return with a variation of the same thing. Why not just trash it out and let it be. For example, on the thread that I wager led to this thread, I raised the trinity issue and he decided that would derail the thread. Then he raised the "Alma" issue (which does the same thing as the trinity issue). I have responded to that and since then, he's left the thread. How does one feel when later, he raises the issue again? Am I supposed to have forgotten my argument or do I look like a cavern echoing and towing the same path over and over without variation?

@Mad_Max:

Actually, not "every single time". More like "significant" times.

You didn't answer me - where does your information come from?

Where's DeepSight?

Now the Alma issue is laid out, he'll disappear without comment though active elseplace as though it wasn't him that started the issue. 6 months hence, it will be brought up someplace else! Makes one wonder what the whole thing is about!

@Tonye-T:

Its obvious you're getting back but please, I beg you in the name of Christ - remember that the people you're discussing with can kill innocents who do not know you just because of the picture above.

All very funny but consider the end result.

Meanwhile, I never knew you had a sense of humor like this

[size=18pt]Alma[/size]

I remember that conversation pretty well and this is what I said and still say. The word "Alma" is used seven (7) times in the OT and every single time, it refers to situations that could only refer to virgins. I asked you on that thread why it was just the case of Mary that you would intepret as "young woman".

But you do not have to believe me - please show ONE time it was used in relation to a woman who had lost virtue. I stated this then and you kept quiet about the assertion. Please address that claim now.

Furthermore, you avoid the Trinity issue I raised and select this one. Fine! What does that however, say about your motives? For you do not wish to derail this thread and discuss Jesus words concerning the names of Father, Son and Spirit but you can veer into "Alma"?

Whichever you would, address now.

What the above means is if you wish to be respected, show respect - we too can link the dots and make the connections. Rehashing things over and over is a waste of my time

@DS:

I hear you.

In that case, let us revert to your decision to "go away" when on the Trinity thread (where my anger/aversion started). At that time, I asked you to explain the words of Jesus - "go ye into the world etc etc  etc baptising them in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit". Tell me how that statement supports your decision that the Holy Spirit is "the energy or force of God".

My recollection in that thread was that when I asked the above, you disappeared only to go couch the same assertion in different terms elsewhere.

BTW, we address issues differently. Please remember that

^^^ & ^^^^ Very interesting. Perfect explanation for a phenomena I've had all my adult life.

Whenever I rebel, get too angry, go "crazy", I get these dreams where I'm back in the university and at times, even in high school and just failed an exam or am about to take one and know I'm not prepared. I have met just the one person who also has the same experiences. Regretably, we're no longer in touch though she remains one of the people I've respected most in my life.

Deep lessons there. Where do you get these stuff, Mad_Max?

@Toba:

How now? My choice of Mad_Max was deliberate. As I said, she's not main-stream christian but she's fair, honest and knowledgable so tricks of "dictates of your faith" cannot be used against her when all else fails and one seeks a prop.

Unsurpassable idiocy -> "Enigma-party"! Why don't you just say you don't know how to really dish it (yet your pathetic attempts give you to believe you are "gangster" and you also don't know how to take it? You'd find pity, believe me.

I wonder how I could ever have thought you were worth the effort.

People who do not agree with ANYTHING I believe exist on this site and have my utmost respect - they listen, they think and they show it. They offer respect because it doesn't cost anything and is a sign of maturity.

You on the other hand, have a closed mind like a sprung trap. You pick on individual words and phrases. You insist you are right when it is blatantly obvious you have gaffed and then you demand to be treated like an adult. Adults behave differently, I assure you. And carrying a permanent hard-on around is not that behaviour.

Trivia it would be in other instance. In this, it turns out so apt.

Because it is your own posts that seem trivial when one considers that though "stoning to death" was the norm in those days, that was not applied in the stated case. I wonder why. Because the husband existed and thought it wise to "allow". I wonder why. And all the witnesses watched, marvelled and kept quiet. I wonder why. Could they have seen something that convinced them to think outside the box?

But 2,000 years after the fact, a young man on heat, trying desperately to convince of his education, decides to show his diction by casting aspersion in not particularly bright language,  on what has been studied and accepted by billions of better educated people with better diction.

Your "vapidness" is so full of theatre. Yet whats your "reality"?

Infinity - defined by poor math, poor logic and deluded reasoning. You need a doctor.

Btw, I do not need Mad_Max to do my work for me. I only pointed out something rather obvious. Your education, scholastic ability and reasoning is directed at what makes you uncomfortable only. When confronted by a neutral party, you crumble. Take the hint and go find that doctor. Tell him its upstairs

@thehomer:

I wish one of you would have the nerve to try these warped arguments against the veracity of the spiritual with people who are not mainstream christians yet know their onions.

There's one here on NL - Mad_Max.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.288.html#msg6872384 from which I quote -
I merely check science now and then to see how well it's coming along. That's why people who claim there's no God from 'science' are a real hoot. Understandable, but a hoot nevertheless. When it comes to the spiritual, science is far behind.
Unquote

Do me a favor and match your "knowledge" of science against her on that thread. But the problem you guys have is Christianity so I wager you'll find a way out of such a dare.

@DS:

In response to our last altercation, I received a mail from a NL member. The subject was "don't mind the theatrical faker". I now see where he was coming from

"Truth" is that there are 2 sides to this divide.

One side [AA] says here is why, when, what.

The other [ZZ] says NO, it cannot be, BASED on what we can observe, study, see

Then [AA] says - "look, this is easy. One thousand years ago, you guys couldn't see Parthenogenesis and thus said it was impossible. And you expected ALL to believe. That position is TODAY false. Today you say this issue is impossible. How do you know that it will not be resolved into your understanding in another 1000 years"

But [ZZ] insists - "We are right because we don't see it"

[AA] - "no wahala. You truly haven't seen it. YET!"

Truth then for me is that, your position is not planted on solid ground. It shifts based on "advancements", which are in turn based on "findings", which are in turn, based on time! Christians cannot shift goalposts and thus, you appear informed because of "doubt" rather than knowledge.

@thehomer:

This has gone past the realms of truth and entered the realms of "I have made up my mind to disagree". But that is fine by me.

If the statement in my penultimate post about considering the lessons of the past flew by you without any impact or lessons learned, no problem. I remain commited to truth, not conjecture, not argument, not sturbbonness. I guess it seems "hype" to not back down at some levels. Not where I stand. Readers can make their own deductions on what is true and what is "evidenced" from the conversation.

On Vescucci's post, the truth is that I am not the one saying you are deluded. That is your "platform". Most everyone who has contributed to this thread has the basic - a bachelors degree - but you seem to assert we threw our education away and you ended up the only literate person here. I say Science is "on-going". You say it is absolute. So I show examples of its progressive progress and you, understanding yet unwilling to accept (not lose) decide to shift the goal-post just so you seem "above" and don't concede nothing. Very powerful. Lovely Ladder. Enjoy the elevation.

Enjoy your week.

@Vesc & Enigma:

Thanks, I'm good now.

On miracles and the atheist, its significant that the issue is a deliberate refusal to remember the lessons of history, the discoveries of cunieforms of all kinds, the dead sea scrolls, excavations that led to science finding her foot in her mouth etc. People talk of what they know today as though understanding stops today. Thats why I used the back-track/fast-forward approach as an allegory - so he could re-consider his absolutist approach.

^^^ I know you understand the above posers I put before you.

[1] I am using parthenogenesis as a poster child for "impossibility" or whatever you wish to say is not possible. Based on that,
[2] 1000 years ago, parthenogenesis was a lie. Yet there was science
[3] Today it is true because science has advanced
[4] Tomorrow, we assume science will keep advancing
[5] 1000 years from now, prove that "science" would not have advanced to the point where it "understands" the virgin birth.

I ask [5] of you on the premise that the same science that discounts the "virgin" birth today as a lie also refused to accept planes could fly or ships would sail or parthenogenesis 1000 years ago based on the information science had then. We have thus shown/seen that science "then" has become a "lie" today. How then do you know that science "today" won't be a lie in 1000 years time?

Remember, science is based on "current" findings and current "1000 years from today" will obviously not be what is current "today".

thehomer:
There you go. Why do you believe that it is easier to accept a virgin birth? What mechanisms do you wish to propose for it to happen in humans? And you're comparing it to something that has already been done for which the principles are clear and easily understood.
Besides, we have more knowledge and information now compared to 2,000 years ago. What mechanism do you wish to give for the occurrence of this virgin birth? Or does it mean something else?

?

Ok, put yourself 1, 500 years AGO and explain "parthenogenesis" or better still, explain how a man living 1, 500 years ago would have explained the concept which you now take for granted because of advancements, wikipedia and the web.

Then fast forward to 1, 500 years AHEAD and prove to me why the advancements that make you (rather than the man 1000 years ago) understand parthenogenesis today will not by that time, have explained HOW a virgin birth is possible!

No hype, no fight, no hiding - all we are saying is that we are limited on this plane and are learning. Till we know the answers, you cannot prove it impossible. Science is a developing "thingy" and has its limitations. What you are saying is tantamount to a man 500 years ago saying air travel is impossible (remember they too had science then)!

@thehomer:

I think you are making a mistake. You're confusing Enigma and the understanding behind this thread with some others and the idea their ilk have.

Those have something to gain from you and so tell you not to cater for your aged parents but rather bring that cash to their coffers. Same with your diabetic - bring it to them and when the child dies, its YOUR faith that was not enough. That is the situation where you'll find suspension of "common sense". This thread and author don't subscribe to such.

Your queries make sense on the surface! But let me ask you how reasonable/sensible/intellectual you would have been suggesting 1, 000 years ago that iron cities (ships) would float and men would sit in iron and fly or I would be in Israel and see a man in Rome live on a metal contraption with a glass tube? Hey, whats glass? When you understand that, you will understand that mankind is learning and the fact that we do not know how something is possible today does not mean it is not possible.

I believe its easier to accept a virgin birth than to believe the iron used to forge a battle-axe in the 11th century would be merged together so large that 5, 000 men would climb on it and it would float half across the world. Think from the perspective of the 11th century man then fast forward your mind to 1, 000 years from now!

The first non-muslim was Adam.
The second was Eve.
The third was Cain and so on.

On the flip side of the divide;-

Nobody knows who the first muslim was.
But he was an idol worshipper who offered sacrifice to Abdullah's (mohammed's father) god long before Mo was born.
Sometime after, Mohammed himself came and joined those allah worshippers

^^ His disgrace came eventually bet on it.

@Inesqor:

Now THAT, is a testimony; not a mish mash of nonsense peddled by a coalition of crooks and never do wells seeking a pay-off and masquerading as affiliated to God. Now that missed appointment becomes really painful

@Joagbaje:

Go read of Mr Tortoise.

^^ Amazing to find some people exist who can't even fake intelligence or even native cunning. Add 80 to this chaps IQ and he might get to being called retarded.

@Chinedumo:

Please let this rest here.

If the entirety was Asia, Asia it would be. If the entirety is as man is distributed today, it would be the entire earth. IF man colonises the moon and God wants to do it, the entirety would be the earth AND the moon. But if it was Asia, its not "my" conception and what I've come to see from study, to include the entirety of earth and the moon. Do you understand now?

And I never said you agreed the flood was local. I was refering to the second question about "local" floods. Those local floods affect parts, not the whole. And thus, no promise has failed.

I am signing out now on this issue. There is nothing you want to ask that I have not covered by my bolded words above. They state my belief of God's capability and remain my own understanding. This conversation has no bearing on the issues confronting us today

^^

Modesty? E-thugs are not known for such. Truth is, been a bit ill and am in my worst mood ever. Twould be better not to answer some offensive stuff above.

Study without practise is generally idiotic, IMO, whether of Christianity or Islam or Ifa or Science. Makes for the perfect nice sounding air-head.

@Purist:

I'm done arguing over this - if you believe like Kag, that I was looking for excuses, I cannot convince you otherwise. However, Vescucci recently spoke of a mysterious person who edited posts "after" and I decided not to do so again whether the reference was to me or not. If you read my posts, you will see that there was another reference to 1906. I simply mixed it up. I type brutally fast and I at times open over 10 windows picking information cross-country (so to speak). After posting, I re-read and I saw it and I left it there for the exact reason I stated. Her work finished in 1958.

Check my previous posts - I have been known to say "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong" - there's nothing to prove in a faceless forum. I am also known for humor and it was like a side-bet for me - will he jump on that or not? Take out that, the reference to Wood's Christianity (when the list I wrote earlier was ignored) and what do you have left? That is why I felt it was a crutch.

For me this is all so simple - there is stated evidence from both sides and each of us chooses who to believe based on what we want to hear - that is the standard human. All I ask is to listen to the other side rather than insisting your belief is science and then searching for others who'll back you up. Hitler too found millions who believed he was right.

You don't have to believe me. And concerning veracity of Wikipedia - I do not take that back and I stand to be corrected.

@Vesc:

Way I see it, I was just required to state my view first.

Plus the thread is no longer even about views concerning the OP's desire.

BTW, did you ever see the thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-214364.0.html ? Page 2 is particularly interesting. Way more interesting.

@Inesqor:

Never ever noticed this Peleg thing. Thanks for the insight.