₦airaland Forum

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
Please check out this thread "Pastors kill witch children in Akwa Ibom" and watch the video. this evil act by these demons that call themselves Men of god is actually justified by the bible in the book of exodus 22:18 which says "suffereth a witch not to live" poor innocent children are being killed / maltreated by demons who are also profitting from it all in gods name and they justify it using the bible. This is why i say as christians we have to discerning when using the bible and allow the spirit of Christ to guide us. This evil act going on in Akwa Ibom(with biblical justification) further goes to explain my assertion that some parts of the bible just doesn't go with christianity.

So, in other words Exodus should not be part of the Bible/Scripture? Lol, cool down and let me point you to something more to the gist here.

Actually, that news was wired to me this morning before I got to the office. Now, if Exodus 22 or the whole of Exodus to Deuteronomy was never in the Bible and all we have as "scripture" are two sentences about "love God" and "love your neighbour", would that solve all our problems here? Certainly not! People have used the same love in Matthew 22 you always quote to do evil things, Kunle!

So, whether it is Exodus 22 or Matthew 22, it makes no difference, because so many people today are justifying so many things that the Scriptures do not warrant them to. This was why I had wanted to help in delineating the difference between the LAW and the new covenant in other threads, but it seems people were more interested in their own passions to dismiss whatever was said - and that was why I relaxed. As long as people continue to confuse issues for themselves, these problems will not go away. People have used the very same "delightful verses" of 'LOVE' in the Bible to do hideous and unspeakable things - and they have "justified" their actions right out from the Bible itself. So what is new here with another wicked act committed under the excuse of Exodus 22?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. But you're talking to me now, it's alright. pele ore mi. (I hope I can call you my friend).

Lo, I wasn't offended at all. So hugs.

Pastor AIO:
Nothing new? I bet no one has called you a dribbler before. Okay, if you want me to find more colourful and interesting labels for you I will.

Please do - it still would be nothing new from the culture of people labelling me.

Pastor AIO:
Science is Fanciful, but rigorously fanciful. It is the application of rigor that gives the imaginings of scientists the power that they have today.

Okay O. . no be me talk am sha. Could I quote you anyday on that?

Pastor AIO:
I'm so glad you've said this.

Cool.

Pastor AIO:
That is why I insist that we need a proper definition of what matter is. For instance, even energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. e equals mc squared. So is energy just another form of matter. We need a definition of what physical is, or natural, before we can start to talk meaningfully about the supernatural.

That's okay - would you like to propose a proper definition then?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Dear pilgrim.1, pray tell, what are your opinions with regards to John 5:39?

May I remind you again: the word 'imperative' does not mean a 'command' in the context I used it with regards to John 5:39. Understanding that, we can now look at a few issues. If we do a bit of language study, we find that every single language has its own perculiar grammatical rules and lexical construct. Not to make this tedious, the Greek construct in that verse does not attune to the analogy of other languages such as Spanish that you cited. That does not mean that Spanish has no such syntax; but let me share the difference.

Why am I convinced that the ‘imperative case’ of John 5:39 is –
       (a) not a direct command on the one hand; and yet,
       (b) deliberately not in that verse at the beginning on the other hand?

Let me show you.

(a) It is not a ‘direct command’ because He was not making it a ‘law’ upon them; rather He was challenging them to go and verify for themselves just this one thing: searching the Scriptures would lead back to Him. However, where the pronoun (‘thou’) highlights their flaw was in their mindset: “you think”. That is why we read in v. 40 that even after they had searched and knew for a fact that the Scriptures bore testimony to Christ, they still would not come to Him. This was why I stated earlier that there was nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures at all.

(b) The pronoun ‘you’ [or ‘thou’] appearing at the beginning would only make it more directly a command, (which it is not) from the construct. This is evident when a direct appeal is made as a matter of urgency upon the recipient. However, the ‘imperative’ mood in Greek is used in various contexts, not just only in the case of a direct command. It could also be used as a request without the tone of a more formal ‘command’; or to recommend something to people. This latter is the case in John 5:39.

However, there other instances where the imperative mood is more like a command than a request or recommendation. But if we look at what you stated earlier:

Pastor AIO: ‘I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative.  ie.  'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.'
In ancient greek it is not the convention to place the you there.’

It may not be the convention; but I've highlighted the reason why the pronoun "you" does not appear there at the beginning even though it appears unconventionally in some other verses. Besides, it would be meaningless to argue on "conventions" here, because the pronoun appears only once in that verse in connection with their mindset (you think).

Since you say that it is not the convention to place the ‘you’ there, I wonder what you make of John 6:26 where indeed the pronoun ‘you’ appears before ‘search’? Like I said, the "imperative" in Greek does not mean everytime that it is a "command", Pastor AIO. When you read that verse even in the Greek, you find indeed that the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search"; and in doing so, it does not break the convention.

There’s no denying that the same construct appears in that verse where we find it stated clearly even in the Greek – contrary to what you had assumed.

In reference to John 5:39, however, we find just about the same thing in ch. 7:52 - "They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." It does not have the pronoun "you" at the beginning of the 'imperative' - and rather than a 'command', it was understood there as a challenge of recommendation.


Bottomline: both John 5:39 and 7:52 show cases of imperative mood which are not "commands"; but the convention does not always hold, because John 6:26 shows where the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search", and yet it is not a command either. I initially assumed that we both were saying the same thing in this regard, that the verse (ch. 5:39) was not a "command"; but you yelled that we were not! No worries.

This was what I noticed in justcool's rejoinder who reacted to Image123's entry earlier. Dear justcool had charged that the KJV "omitted" the "you" at the beginning of the sentence, "making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach". This gentleman does not understand the Greek imperative, and his charge against the KJV having "omitted" the pronoun (you) is false. The pronoun does not appear there, and KJV was not making it sound like a command at all! Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged.

@Pastor AIO,

Let me go back in reference to some statements you made earlier:

Pastor AIO: As a result in many such languages the imperative (command) can get mixed up with the present indicative.

I think that is where some people are getting it wrong, for the imperative is not strictly and always a matter of "command". In many other languages, this is very clear, for we know that in French, the imperative mood could be used to imply the following:

■ give an order
■ express a desire
■ offer advice
■ recommend something
■ make a request

Like I said as regards the imperative in John 5:39, there was no place in my rejoinders where I used that word "imperative" to imply a "command". I made that thing very clear; so if one were reading the word 'imperative', please don't assume everytime that it is always pointing to a "command".

That's what I need to clear first and then I'll share my thoughts on John 5:39.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Good morning Pilgrim.1. Kaaro ojire

Nairaland is seriously disrupting my runnings. By the time I answer a couple of posts I find I don't have time to do any of the really important things that I wanted to do. As much as it can be bemusing and even frustrating, I also enjoy it a lot. A bit too much in fact.

In a bit of a way, same here. Thankfully, I have ample space to work, study and play quite often.

Pastor AIO:
I am now certain that you must be a psychic. How did you know that I was rolling my eyes and frothing at the mouth when I wrote that post. I was really trying to pretend to be calm.

We all have these feelings sometimes, and it's not hard for anyone to detect it in others.

Pastor AIO:
Madam, I believe that when it comes to attacking Catholics on this forum you wear the Crown. I don't disdain any catholics.

I don't deny that, nor do I make excuses for it. The one thing I have said is that, during my long break sometime around April, I have had some reflections and through several friends (Catholic, Muslims and atheists), my understanding of how to deal with issues should be more balanced. Even if I never attacked Catholics and their doctrines (nevermind what I often said "I sidon jeje. . ", does it justify why any other person should be attacking them at all on this very thing?

Pastor AIO:
Oo, sorry did I attack you? You know, it's so true what they say about the playground bully. All you have to do is stand up to him and he'll run away crying and claiming that he's been victimised. But honestly, dear, you shouldn't leave your ego lying about, or it is likely to get trodden on.

Don't kid yourself - some might have thought I was fazed, but no. I knew you were becoming upset and I didn't want you to explode on yourself. That I noted the attitude of those who speak often about love and not being able to live up to their very preaching is one thing that amuses me in this thread.

Pastor AIO:
The post is not shifting, the problem is one single problem all the way through. Namely the hand of man in the bible. Whether in translation, in selection of books, or in indoctrination. The Goalpost have remained exactly where they are when Kunle started this thread and your failure to slot the ball into it cannot be blamed on anything but yourself.

Lol, it's like you're hooting as a replacement to wear Kunle's jersey in this game of shifting the posts. No worries. The issues have indeed shifted several times and they were neither articulated nor address when highlighted. It is one thing to ask questions - quite another thing to be completely vacant when asked to answer a few questions relating to the same concerns. We know that there are problems with translating any document into another language. We also know that there are problems with collating a set of documents for any establishment - and it doesn't have to just religion. We also know that there are interpretations in whatever is proffered.

But in all this, what exactly is the problem and complaint about the Bible that some are inclined to be disenchanted with it? This is why I repeatedly refer to the first question I asked on page 1 - that question has never been addressed; and the glib answers so far are not addressing that simple question. Which necessitated my approach to ask that those who have written others off as imbued with "ignorance" should tell us what in their own spirituality holds as "canon" if they are very disenchanted with the Bible. Slice it anyhow and any which way, when people can quote from that same Bible on love (both OT and NT), why does it then become tyranical for them to quote other references from the same Bible in just the way they quote passages on "love"?

Pastor AIO:
Dear pilgrim I am running out of time so I'll address a few of these as quickly as I can. Peter refers to prophecy in scripture. We know how the prophets prophesied. The spirit of God came on them. He then goes on to warn us that at the same time there were false prophets amongst the people, 'secretly bringing destructive heresies'.

Prophecy in Scripture was one of the several references I gave. What happens to "Scripture cannot be broken"?

One is dealing with what is contained within scripture - the other is dealing with Scripture itself! I have never been confused about the difference, and this should not be difficult for us all to see.

Pastor AIO:
When jesus said scripture cannot be broken or paul said it is given by inspiration of God, your canonical bible did not even then exist.

You don't seem to have a clue what Scripture really is. It seems that all you are holding is the idea that only the OT is "scripture". Well, I have made references to both NT and OT citations - if the NT fails to qualify, why quote any part of it as "scripture"?

Pastor AIO:
Proverb says 'every word of God is true', not every fabrication of man that pretentiously claims to be scripture.

So tell me, which books in the NT qualify as "fabrication"?

Pastor AIO:
Dear pilgrim.1, pray tell, what are your opinions with regards to John 5:39?

Gladly - I'll do so in a moment.

@PAstor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Just how did "these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah" get into this conversation. I've got to admit that I am often curious about the mechanism of how your mind works. Is there actually a link that takes you from one idea to another or do you just throw them in with the intent of making people chase Red herrings? Or perhaps you are just amusing yourself at our expense.

I don't set out to amuse anybody at anybody's expense. Often is the case that when people discuss these issues, the very next thing is that they would go precisely that route of "cognition and cognitive" talk - which was pointing to this example about the activity of the brain.

Pastor AIO:
Ma cherie, if today a scientist came up with a theory and proof that refuted Einstein's theory of Relativity science would go along with it, no problemo. There is no scientific theory that cannot be overturned with sufficient evidence. Of course individual scientists have biases (not least because their egos cannot bear being surpassed by other scientists) However science is done in a community and scientists are constantly arguing and debating against themselves. It is not taboo or blasphemous to attack any scientific theory. In fact imagine what a scalp it would be for a young scientist to come up with something that overturns Darwin's Theory of Evolution completely. If it were possible, many scientists would be going for it if for no other reason than to gain the notoriety of being the one that did it. Everyday scientists debate with each other and overturn the conventional wisdoms they inherit.

I'm quite aware of all that.

Pastor AIO:
Now, to complain that no one rejects fanciful scientific theories but they pounce on fanciful religionist's theories (yes, they are fanciful too) is putting science and religionism on the same footing. Science is allowed to be fanciful. Religion's claims are altogether different and if a religious theory/idea is proved false the shock to the entire edifice of the religion should be devastating (of course it isn't because religionists have wonderful dribblers like you). It should be devastating because the religionists claim that God has revealed it to them as absolute truth. If it is proved wrong then either God is a liar or they haven't got a mandate from God and they are liars and their entire religionism is a Lie.

Thanks for the compliments in blue, nothing new among all other sorts people have labelled me with. However, to save space, I think that you're just amusing yourself by assuming that science is allowed to be fanciful.

On the other hand, many people may have various interpretations to both supernatural revelations as well theories in science. I'm not fazed anytime this happens, because the quarrels between scientists among themselves on the one hand, and among theists on the other hand, are never ending because man's interpretations are always dynamic and never ending.

Pastor AIO:
If incorporeal means 'NOT composed of matter as we know it', tell me, what are the possibilities of matter as we don't know it?

We have often had to adjust our understanding of 'matter'. When we were in school, we were told that matter is in 3 forms - solid, liquid and gas. However, that idea became retired when it was found that a 4th state of matter was detected: plasma! Could it be possible that all we know about 'matter' today may be insufficient when it is revealed that 'matter' exists in forms, states, and structures that we have not been made aware of at the present? Thus my submission that incorporeal points to entities different from 'matter as we know it today'.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1 you keep missing the point. where as it is usefull and profitable for us as christians to use the bible or scriptures to assist our spiritual growth and knowledge of the faith we profess, the bible should not be seen as a sine qua non to the faith. What Jesus promised us was the holy spirit to direct us in the faith. He never said he would send a written set of rules or any canon which we must use in his worship. So you telling us to come up with an alternative canon is quite diversionary. Why don't you carry out this exercise as a christian? Forget all you have ever been told or learnt about christianity and start afresh. Remember christianity starts in the new testament, read all the teachings of christ and the apostles. Any thing not taught there being practised today is what they refer to as doctrine of men. The sooner we acknowledge and accept that a lot of what we call christianity today is indoctrination the better for us. And you would begin to realize this when you truly begin to study and live the spirit and nature of christ.

You really don't get it. Not at all. I am not oblivious of the promise of the Lord Jesus in John 16:7 and such as regards the Holy Spirit. But the way you guys have been complaining is what invites my questions. Up until now, I have not seen you guys calmly address those questions before shifting the posts, as I hinted to Pastor AIO. The basic thing you are projecting (IMHO) is that you seem very interested in disconnecting the Scripture from the Spirit - and yet you fail to understand that they go together! It may be shocking to read this, and that is why I have invited you guys to solve your problem in reflecting on what you're doing.

KunleOshob:
I have a poser for you, how come the geatest commandment of christ (love thy neighbour as your self) is being ignored in most christian circles today? Love in this tense i a verb(an action) it must be seen and felt not just lip service. How many of our churches actually show really love(passion /empathy) to their members and people around them.

How many people who talk about and recommend that "love" today are willing to show that love? Why do we not see these same people who talk and whine about others not be able themselves to show that love?

Whatever people do is not what defines the veracity of the Christian faith for me. I have seen people who talk everyday about Matthew 22:35-39 do very unloving things to their brethren, so no big deal there. I have even seen Christians who talk about the Holy Spirit everyday do things that are very degrading and still say they were "led". If loving God and one's neighbour are to be demonstrated in our testimony, we would first need to ask how we treat the things of God before we recommend the same to others.

KunleOshob:
Matthew 22:35-39:
35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

John 13:34-35:
34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

My this-enchantment with churches and indoctrination is based on the failure of both the church and christians in general to keep a commandment our Lord and saviour described as the most important commandment. Yet they emphasize a lot of doctrines of Men

It is true that you have done the very same thing you accuse others of, so please don't present yourself here as any better. I say this lovingly, though. You seem to be too carried away when you refer to passages on love, and yet fail to understand that ALL THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS are built on loving God and others (see Matthew 22:40)! This is why we are asked to not be partial in things pertaining to God.

@Pastor AIO,

Good morning. I hope your day goes as you wish.

First off, there's no need to to be reactive - none at all. The problem with many people today is this: while they seem to have "arrived" upon a super-state of spirituality, suddenly all their brethren come under all sorts of accusations. Why should this be the case at all? Let's ask a few questions from your reply and then see if this is not the same thing that is manifesting repeatedly:

Pastor AIO:
You just don't get it, do you? Why has there got to be a Canon? Why does there have to be an authoritative compilation when you've got the holy spirit to guide you in all things. You're so stuck on this idea of 'searching the scripture' on the basis of 'therein you will find eternal life' that if one bible is proved short of the mark, you immediately seek out another one to replace it. It's not about any canon, ma cherie, it's about the holy spirit and you need to get the Holy spirit in you so you can get the guidance you need.

I'm not stuck on any idea, thank you. If you cannot address anything calmly, I can bear with that.

Now, when someone is accused as I have been with all sorts (including "stupidity", I'm thankful that in that condition I could still ask some questions such as you guys are asking, No? But here is the real problem: the WHY?

If that is our problem, why blame the Catholic Church and Bishops for anything at all? It makes me wonder that we feel quite at home to disdain people for being simply "Catholic" (than 'catholic') and yet we cannot do better than they have done - because we still have to go back and thankfully use what they have canonised.

If that is our problem, why attack others who are asking questions? The post keeps shifting, because one is no longer sure what the problem is anymore: from "translation errors", to "not accepting some books should not be in the Bible", to "why should there even be any canon at all". It seems that nobody is addressing any issue that is queried before the focus is shifted to something else. Is it the "translation errors" that has been the problem? Or, is it the "removed books"? Or yet, is it now "why should there be any canon"? What is next on line to shift the goal post?

Consequently, if there is no need for any canon, why should anyone even want to make a fiat to anything called "scripture"? What then is the meaning of Jesus' statement that "scripture cannot be broken"? What is meant by Peter's statement about prophecy of scripture in 2 Pet. 1:20-21? What is meant by "all scripture given by inspiration of God"? What is meant by Jesus' warning in Matthew 5:17-19? What is meant by Proverbs 30:5-6? What is meant by Malachi 4:4?

When we ask questions, it is not because we don't have the Holy Spirit, so what's with "you need to get the Holy Spirit in you"? Are we to dispense with the scriptures inspired by God just because we now have the Spirit to "guide" us?

To answer your question as to a "canon", consider this: I am not stuck on anything as you alleged. You could simply ask me some questions in regards to John 5:39 if you please, and I would obliged; but that should not be used as a fausse patte to allege anything against anyone. However, if it focuses on Scripture as not necessary to the Christian faith (am only asking, correct me if you think otherwise), could I ask you what you make of Biblical prophecies, among several other things?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Pilgrim 1 whats up girl? how body. . . . . .

Bo my dear bros, body dey o jare. Wetin dey happen for your corner? I hope enjoyment never diminish where you tanda?

cocoman4u:
But now living in America and watching the history chanel, and talking with christians here. It is obviouse that the bible was compiled by the early catholic bishops. Whoever denies this is either ignorant or crazy. It is a well known and documented facts that they removed alot of books. Knowlegeble Christians in America do not deny this. Rather they bass their fate on the Holy Spirit.

Could you guys give us your own canon that includes and excludes whatever books the Holy Spirit confirms in your own hearts after fellowshipping with Him? Granted, everybody that has been asking questions to this end is either ignorant or crazy - but at least you who are now very super-spiritual could condescend to give us your own Holy Spirit canon, No?

Talk about the idea that they "removed a lot of books", it suggests that there was already a standard canon but some of the books contained in that canon were "removed", no? What books were "removed"? What did those books say and teach? Why were they removed? Why would they have been included? And if they were also included, would that satisfy your spirituality and be confirmed by your fellowship with the Holy Spirit as the canon for the standard of Christian living so that others are no longer "ignorant or crazy"?

The Catholic Church is blamed for this, that and the other. Is it not ambidextrous that after all that has been blamed upon them, the same accusers still go back and use what the Catholic Bishops have compiled? If you want to free yourselves from your worries about what they have done, appeal to the Holy Spirit to produce your own canon and be happy with that rather than to keep blaming the Catholic scholars for anything and yet unable to take one step to do anything better than they have done! Is that too hard a task to achieve while still disenchanted against the 'Catholic Bishops' for the canon you use today?

justcool:
Pastor you are wise!

We were waiting for you guys to address issues, not back patting yourselves.

JeSoul:
This thread has degenerated into a "bash Pilgrim" party, sista Pilgrim can I bash too?

Lol, I wonder why you took that long to bash me sef. You know when you do yours, na anointing for my head you go bless me with. Anyhow, I trust you're doing okay?

KunleOshob:
Today some pastors are able to smuggle non- christian doctrine like tithes and first fruit offerings into christianity just because the catholic church for reasons known to themselves alone decided to include books not relevant to christianity in the canon of our scriptures.

This is not about tithes; and tithes should not be your life-long anathema. But we have waited long for you to tell us what your own canon of scripture should be. What books do you mean by "the canon of our scriptures"? Please list them simply, thank you.

KunleOshob:
It is so nice to see Pilgrim.1 being bullied and given a taste of her own medicine I am sure she thought she was the only one who could read greek on this thread

Lol, I don't feel bullied; people have done worse, so that is no bother at all. I have not used expressions as they have, so what is the dose of my own medicine there?

KunleOshob:
No she is not she is only trying to force her own biases into scripture as she literally confessed earlier

I did not make any such confessions, thank you.

Pastor AIO:
Have you totally lost your marbles. Now you're seeing things. I said that if Ereunate is to be translated as the imperative conjugation (ie the command 'search', rather than the present indicative You search) the the entire phrase sounds wrong. The only way it would sound right were if it said 'search the scriptures, for in them[b] I say[/b] you have eternal life.' But, as it is clear for all to see, that is not what the text says at all. I don't believe that you don't get that. You're just trying to dribble your way out of the fact that you have been caught red handed trying to peddle deception. We have not come to the same conclusion at all.

Granted that we have not come to the same conclusion. That is why I waited to make yourself clear. Please understand something here: There is no place I have said that the verse was a direct command, and I know what you guys are trying to grasp from the word "imperative". Let me explain.

In the Greek imperative there, the Lord Jesus was not dissing them for searching the Scriptures - not at all; rather, the construct only shows that He pointed them to that very thing - "Search". And like you pointed out earlier, it is in connection to the basis of why He pointed them to that: the same scriptures they searched were pointing to Him. No confusion there.

Now, a basic principle in understanding this is to not derive meanings simply from a verse taken in isolation (2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". When you go through the various ways that Jesus addressed the same group of people, He always pointed them back to the same Scriptures: not by direct command, but to impress them with the fact that in doing so they cannot in good conscience deny what they complain against.

This is not too difficult to see in that text; and that is why instead of being reactive, all one needed to do is see where the said word is, in reference to the accusation against the KJV that it "omitted" the word. The point is, that word was never there at the beginning of the verse, and that accusation is false.

Pastor AIO:
I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative. ie. 'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.'
In ancient greek it is not the convention to place the you there. You know that because you've studied greek so why are you asking KunleOshob to show you the 'you'.

The only reason why I asked Kunle to show me where that is was because he had made the same assertion that was found in justcool's to the end that other versions got it right and the KJV got it wrong. How that came about was what I wanted him to point out directly from the text. Was that a hard request?

Pastor AIO:
Now tell me, is that not Mendacity and evidence of a desire to deceive?

No, that was why I posted the text in Greek.

Pastor AIO:
I will withdraw my allegations if you show me how it is not so.

I would do so if you could help me translate that verse as best you could.

Pastor AIO:
I do not throw such accusations at people lightly. If other people have said other things about you, I am not them and I do not know the history behind their calling you names, however I do know that there is no smoke without a fire so perhaps you need to give what they are saying some consideration. Maybe. I don't know, but I would if a lot of people started saying things about me that I didn't like. I would first try to find whether they have a point.

I have given every possible opportunity to reason with them; after laying my concerns and inviting responses, they either never considered what I stated or went on happily holding on to the same allegations.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
What?!!! Are you reading minds now. I'm hoping to highlight what? What has human and Spirit got to do with saying that Spirit is Incorporeal and Invisible.

I'm not reading your mind as I'm not clairvoyant; rather, the way you present your arguments was why I presented how simplistic you have been alleging my rejoinders to have sounded, which was wrong.

Pastor AIO:
If someone asked you to describe me and you told them that 'well, he is not Chinese', I guess that would help to narrow the possible number of people I could be to 4/5ths of the worlds population. But it is hardly a sufficient definition by which to begin a search. Where to you start? With looking for oyinbos, or aboriginal australians, or latinos, or negros.
Well I guess that you're right that a negative description is information of some sort about it. But that Spirit is Incorporeal, ie not having a physical body, and Invisible, ie NOt seen by the eyes are negative descriptions. And between you contradict yourself by saying it is invisible and then showing youtube videos of demons on guy's shoulders and other such stuff.

I did not contradict the statements - they are invisible, and yet I made instances in what circumstances they have been. You asked earlier at one point about what it was that makes them invisible, and my reply was that we don't know everything about their nature to be able to say specifically why that is so.

Pastor AIO:
At least with Dark matter the scientists start with observable phenomena. Dark matter causes Gravity. They then go on to further classify this cause of gravity as being invisible which is something they find very puzzling. There is so much to say about your posts and you write such long ones too that I'm almost tired before I even start. I've got a busy day to get back to so I shall have to return later.

Apologies if what I offer is not scanty - if they were, it doesn't seem that would even satisfy. But when you do reply, I shall point out the few things you requested earlier.

Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
As it happens this is the case with the greek language.  As pilgrim.1 tells us that she has studied greek I presume that she is well aware of this in the conjugation of greek verbs.  In which case I can only assume that she has been willfully deceptive and mendacious.
. . .

Knowing now that Pilgrim.1 is actually familiar with Greek is disturbing because it suggests to me that she is willfully trying to deceive.

Thank you for your graciousness. I know (and this is not new) that anything I point out these days only earns me some very nice "Christ-like" appellations from you guys - not only have I been labelled "rude, malicious, fanatic, ignorant, stupid, indoctrinated, accuser,", but the list grows by those who advise me to be "Christ-like" and are happy to still label me as you have added. No worries, but before you jail me allow some space for me to clear myself.

I am not being "willfully deceptive and mendacious". What I see is what I have pointed out and I have nothing against anyone in doing so. This is what you stated:

Pastor AIO:
This word ερευνατε (Ereunate) can be translated as[b] you search[/b] (present indicative) or as a command Search.  Which is it?

Well let us consider the context in which we find it.  The statement 'Ereunate the scriptures' is followed by a reason why.  '- for in them you think that you have eternal life'.  When someone does an action such as search the scriptures there is often a reason for it.  That reason is based on a presumption or belief that they have.  They search the scriptures because they think that therein lies eternal life.  This following phrase tells us that Jesus is say 'You search . . .'.  If it was a command it sounds wierd.  It should rather be  "[size=14pt]Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life[/size]".    not 'I'm telling you to search the scripture because YOU THINK that therein you have eternal life'.  because you think' tells me that Jesus is referring to an action that originates from their own impulses and not a command from Jesus.

As I do not want to run the risk of being accused of taking your quote our of context, I have quoted everything. But what conclusion have you come to other than this:
     _____________________________________________________________________________
         It should rather be
       "Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life"
     _____________________________________________________________________________

This is interesting! After labelling me as you pleased, you only came back to the same conclusion of what I had been pointing out? How is it that you do not have the YOU at the beginning of that verse in your own inference, Pastor AIO? Yours begins with "Search" and not "You" - is that not what I said and have been pointing to in discussing the imperative? Haa!

Second, I never assumed anywhere that John 5:39 was a command! Please go back to all my rejoinders thus far and see for yourself. I wonder if it is just that you read "pilgrim.1" that you just reacted the way you did and yet only came back to say the same thing?

Let me alloow you to rest your heart. If you are only saying the very same thing I did at that verse and yet you can be so "Christ-like" in your disenchantments, I thank you deeply from my heart. May God bless you many times over.

Shalom.

Dear KunleOshob,

Thus far, you only provide me with substance to waste your complaints. There is nothing strange in what I have been pointing out in yours. Talk about "research", you make allusion to that as if others are oblivious or ignorant of the same "research". Translation 'errors' occur in text, but that is not the same thing as complaining that some passages should not be in the Bible. These are two very different things.

Another thing is that you often are too given to applaud what you have never once verified for yourself. Since you assume that other Christians are "indoctrinated" and thus are wallowing in "ignorance", that is why you seem to be on the look out for only those assertions that please your agenda - never once trying to see reason in what others may have to say. Never. And when they point out certain things to you, it often displeases you to even consider what they might have noted.

Third, given all things and even granting that your own spirituality is the more correct, why is it taking you forever to just provide us with your own canon? I am aware of the allegation of 300,000 "errors" that people make against the KJV (some even say it is more - about 10,000 in the OT and 300,000 in the NT = 310,000 together); but when asked if they could just walk us through every single one of those calculated "errors", they take offence and would not even calm down to consider what others may be asking. To these folks, anyone who reads any version of the Bible is a complete slowpoke and should be treated as such, with nothing relevant that could be heard from them! I have met these people so many times, that there is nothing you have presented that deviates from their attitude.

So, initially I had wanted to just stay out altogether until occasion brings me back; but for someone to assert obviously vacant ideas that are not true and hopes to get away with it, I would rather seek to call their attention to it. If they are not satisfied, I invite them to look at the manuscripts. Soem are sincere enough to do so and see where they were misled; others are too heady to even consider anything. The KJV is "evil" according to them; but these same fellows fail to realize that the versions they quote have done too many INSERTIONS that they cannot defend from any manuscripts - yet, they are very happy to quote and emphasise these other versions while castigating the KJV.

Like I said, almost every version that I have had the privilege to consider have their own problems - it is not perculiar to only the KJV. Any version you use has this very problem and some have them in greater degree than they accuse against the KJV! That is something they never consider. But if you ask them to step up and show their defence of why they favour those other versions, they quickly assume that you're attacking them, you're "ignorant", you're "selfish and loveless", or you're just simply a fanatic! No, I'm not referring to only what I have read in this thread, that is why I have noted that this has been my experience with those I have met face to face in discussing this matter!

I have nothing against you or anyone; that is why every assertion you make, the one question I offer you is to mirror that assertion against your inner convictions and see for yourself if the Holy Spirit is bearing witness to such false and unfair allegations - allegations that we all know are indefensible in the face of hard facts from the manuscripts themselves. Does the Spirit of God bear witness in your heart to keep making those false allegations which you cannot defend?

Well, dear sir, it has been my few bits to help you see these matters. Perhaps what has happened so far is a confirmation that when someone has made up their mind to refuse to see simple facts, anything and everything that they cannot defend will delight them. Best regards if that is what you had always wanted to confirm above all.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Could you please point out exactly what it is that Justcool or myself said that is false and in the process let us also know the correct position of things with facts to back it up

I have done so already. Again I outlined it and gave the facts by quoting the text from its manuscript from which those versions derived their translations.

KunleOshob:
There is nothing i have applauded here that i have not confirmed to be true.

In other words, you are confirming that the "omission" of 'you' at beginning of John 5:39 is true in the KJV? And what have you said about the fact that the other versions only inserted that word there?

KunleOshob:
I am sure you are quite aware i have done quite a bit of research on KJV even before we began debating it on this thread.

You have been asserting it and yet not living up to it. Anyone can make assertions breezily as you do - that is why I only posted the Greek and let's see you give it your best shot and stop complaining about this vacant "research".

KunleOshob:
I am also a good student of bible history and everything Justcool wrote i can attest to it that he is 100% correct.

No worries, I have waited long enough for you guys to show me where you find "you" as an omitted in the verse as posted clearly here. Na only 100%? Why then have you been complaining and whinging when asked to show what that verse says?

KunleOshob:
I know the truth can sometimes be bitter, but then it must be told.

That's what I have done, dear sir. It may be bitter and that is why you have been complaining about the inconvenient truth on a single verse thus far.

KunleOshob:
There is no point in distorting facts to preserve the inegrity of the bible

Very true, which is the whole point in asking that you and your adulators refrain from this perversive assertions that you have never taken the steps to clarify. The only thing we read thus far is whinging.

KunleOshob:
God did not give to us in the first instance. My christianity is Spirit based like that of the early christians not on any man made object or Idol whichcan at best be described as a tool to aid our christian lives.

So what is so difficult and 'idol' about your own spirituality that up until now has proved its inability to provide us with your own canon?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
I see you want to go into a theological debate with me, this i would not concede to. And what are you planning to achieve by posting the greek writings which you assume i can't read. I assume you can't read it as well.

In the first place, you are too presumptuous for your own good. I'm least interested in winning any argument, and if I wanted a theological debate, I would pick someone who was well qualified and not a vacantly assertive person who is happy to applaud every lie under the sun that he has never for once checked out! That is why when I read these false allegations that you and your folks have been too happy to dribble through the back door, I have often come back to bleach them.

KunleOshob:
Any way to cut the long story of insertion and omission, the basic problem with the kJV is the word for word translation method applied. the problem with word for word translation is is that meaning is sometimes lost because of the way various languages use different words. Try a word for word tranlstion from english to yoruba in a sentense and see how much sense it makes. This error in KJV was corrected in later translations (incuding the New KJV) and a more appropriate meaning for meaning translation method was applied. Thus better accuracy and understanding was achieved. I am quite sure you are aware of this but for the purpose of "winning"argument you would grab at the straws of omission and insertion.
Personalyy i don't know why a lot of churches still prefer to use this poor and confusing translation. Are they trying to confuse/mis-interprete scripture to their congregation?? If so KJV would be the ldeal version to use.

Look my dear sir, I am very well aware of the various translation methods adopted by so many versions and translations of the Bible (and other documents including the Gnostic Gospels and the texts early Greek philosophers). Please consult any one of these documents and you will see too many different readings in translations and versions. Many people often have a problem with Biblical texts while never making this same noise about the documents of early philosophers that were translated with as many "errors" in translations.

However, rather than be bogged down with methods of translations or what nots, it was a very serious problem for one to accuse the KJV of omissions where they have never once checked out what they are saying. Why should Christians perpetuate these allegations applauding them? Every time I hear or read these allegations of "omissions" and "insertions", one question I have always asked the accuser is this: 'have you personally checked it out yourself or you're just singing that anthem by rote?' Often is the case that it turns out they have never checked it out! Then for crying out loud, why should these fellows applaud their misleading ideas and become unhappy when shown to be untenable?

Meanwhile, although I'm not a polyglot, Greek is one of the languages I speak and quite well understand. And as soon as justcool made that assertion in allegation that the KJV "omitted" that word at the beginning of that verse, the first thing I did was to re-check to see if I had got it wrong, before coming on to reply to that misleading assumption. I would never even try to say a word thereto if I had not first checked. That is why I have often called your attention to first go and check all things before applauding anyone about anything, lest you run the risk of applauding a false assertion.

@KunleOshob,

I asked you to check and confirm the vacant assertion from justcool; but before you come back with another excuse, here's something to help you for starters:

KunleOshob:
Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

This is how that verse reads from where all those other "versions" derived their translations -

         John 5:39

           ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε εν αυταις ζωην
         αιωνιον εχειν και εκειναι εισιν αι μαρτυρουσαι περι εμου

You're entitled to keep making this vacant assertion against the KJV "omitting/omit/omitted" the word "you" at the beginning of that verse. Please show us where in that verse you see YOU at the beginning of that verse! Did you even notice that the Douay-Rheims Bible justcool also quoted did not have that word ('you') at the beginning of that verse? Did you check?

What has happened is that the other versions cited by justcool to arrive at his ideas did just the opposite: they inserted the word "you" at the beginning of that verse!  Are you happy with their own insertions while pointing accusing fingers against the KJV? Let me know sir, thank you.

@KunleOshob,

How body? Like I said earlier, you don't seem to have moved from one spot on the problems you have presented to yourself. One who assumes these things the way you do should be able to bear witness simple and without much ado about what exactly he is pursuing. You cannot keep making vacant assertions and blow breeze in the air when asked to be specific.

KunleOshob:
It is not in my authority or place to do that but when i come across what is not of christ in the bible i know it is not meant for my christian life

Nothing new there. It has always been in your place to indicate that you cannot accept certain passages of Scripture, so what is this dribbling that you always present as a passport?

KunleOshob:
I am sure justcool was very explicit in his explaination of this issue with enough biblical quotes from various versions to back up his claim. As i have always told you KJV as several translation errors.

I'm sure that you're applauding just about anything that peppers your misadventures. That is why I asked a simple thing there: he should go and check and be sure of his assertion that KJV "omitted" the word 'you' at the beginning of John 5:39. Anybody can make these obviously flawed assertion as if they have any clue what they are saying, and that is why you have bought into the lie that there are about 300,000 translation errors in the KJV. Yes, there are translation errors in most many versions and translations, but man in his duplicity likes to overblow these things and arrive at 300,000 errors. That was why I asked you if YOU had personally checked them out for yourself before singing the same anthem by rote?!

Kunle, justcool was absolutely wrong - the KJV did not "omit" that word ('you'), but he was only basing his adventures on some versions that have inserted that word at the beginning of the verse! Please check it out yourself and let's read from you. I shall be looking forward to that. If you fail to highlight the same, you would only be confirming what I have been saying: false accusations and allegations seem to undergird the type of spirituality many people take to themselves today. Would you care to check and confirm the same?

KunleOshob:
I now know why you always have a different understanding of scripture: you are always reading your own meaning into it

Why should I please the false pious assertions of people reading their own "omissions" into the texts?

KunleOshob:
Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

Kunle, the word "you" is not in the manuscripts at the beginning of that verse. What has happened is that it was INSERTED there by those other versions. The man who said KJV "omitted" that word is simply lying through his teeth. Go and check and let me know if you like to buy into that lie.

KunleOshob:
God gave us scripture in a way I thought it was wriiten by men under inspiration for the understanding and use of men. And why would God want to confuse anybody about his word which is meant for our use? And does 100% scripture = 100% bible?

You see how you are happy to misread what I wrote? This is why I have refrained from discussing anything and rather ask questions. Yes, God gave us His Word in such a way that man who deems himself super-intelligent will always miss it! ask some more and I shall simply give you the verses to consider - but before I do so, I want you to show me what John 5:39 was "omitting" instead of "inserting" done by those other versions. If you cannot show this, I'm sorry it would only confirm that you are always happy to be patted on the back by those misleading you.

KunleOshob:
What happened to the book of enoch Jude quoted from in the book of Jude? Wasn't it considered scripture then? Why did the catholic church decide to exclude it from the bible when the early apostles who should know better considered it as scripture? The Ethopian orthodox church which is older than the catholic church included it in their own canon of scripture along with several other books excluded from our own bible. why is this so? The questions are many my dear. I sincerely pray and hope that the holy spirit would minister the truth to us all and we would listen to the spirit. I understand what centuries of indoctrination can do so i won't blame any body who finds it difficult to come to terms with the truth staring us all in the face.

Have you ever heard of such terms as "Deutero-Canonicals/Apocrypha"? You complain so much as a man shooting his lips into the air. Kunle, please show me your own canon and then the very core of your argument will then be presented to you - neat and easy.

Cheers.

@Image123,

Image123:
@ KunleOshob
Hi, kunle. Just want to contribute a little to help UI really hope you can gain from this. Please do not be offended by the ‘Kunle syncre’ diagnosis by pilgrim.1 and odas. Sorry, don’t mind them/us.

Bo my broda, na wa sef for this yeye pilgrim.1 - she and her diagnosis sef! Don't mind her o jare.

Anyhow, I enjoyed your bit, quite refreshing. Blessings.

@justcool,

justcool:
The bible that we have today was compiled by the Catholics. When they became the universal religion of the Roman Empire, they collected all Christian and Jewish scriptures, including letters that the apostles wrote to different churches. Out of this collection they choose to compile what we have as the bible today. This is why the scripture or the bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is different. They kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected. Even the Gnostic Christians kept some of the books that the Catholics rejected.
Later out the catholic bible, the Protestants rejected more books, like Macabes 1 and 2, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

It is always very easy to make accusative assumptions here and there, but one thing I have always asked and been interested in is this: could you guys just simply show what books are supposed to be in the Bible and what books should be left out before you can be satisfied with a canon as 'Scripture'?

justcool:
@Image123
Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations:

In other words, people are not encouraged to search the Scriptures? You should be careful what you say, because interpretations matter - depending on what you either read out of a text, or otherwise read into the text.

justcool:
The verse correctly said that people search the scriptures because they think that the scriptures contain eternal life. But the scriptures at best bear witness or points towards Jesus Who is the Truth. Therefore there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Eternal life only comes by living the words of Jesus. Therefore we should put Christ before everything, even before the scriptures. This is what the verse(John 5:39) is saying.

That is quite another matter - as I said, it all depends on interpretations springing from either what you read into the text or what you read out of the text. God's Word in Scripture is always given a very serious place in the life of a believer, and the Lord Jesus always made this very clear. One cannot come to truly know what life in Christ truly means if they downplay the importance of Scripture - for even Jesus made clear that faith in Him is contigent upon what Scripture says about Him: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:39). Faith comes by hearing the word of God - and that is a principle that runs through Scripture.

justcool:
InsoIn somenslations, the meanManningchanged or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

How would you know that KJV "omitted" the word 'You' at the beginning of that verse? Have you carefully checked if that word even appears at the beginning of that verse in the Greek manuscripts? You are just going by what some other versions are saying which have inserted that word 'you' at the beginning.

In any case, any serious student of that verse knows that it is an imperative, pointing to the attitude of giving mere lip service to obedience to God's Word. They knew how to point to the Scripture if asked any question, but even when they had the answers they would never make a single move towards what they themselves have discovered! This has been their very attitude from the very onset - an example in Matthew 2 was when Herod called these same fellows and asked them where Jesus was to be born. They were accurate in giving the answers, but they never took one step in seeking out the very thing they themselves recommended from Scripture to Herod (see verse 5 especially)!

There's nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures - the lives of the prophets were marked by that very thing (compare 1 Peter 1:10-11, where the prophets are said to have "enquired and searched diligently" the matters reported now in the saving Gospel of Christ). It all depends what you either read into the text, or otherwise read out of it; but the principle is always certainly that people do not just base their interpretations solely on one verse in isolation - scripture should be compared with scripture (see 2 Peter 1:20).

justcool:
Besides in John 5:39, or in the time of Jesus, what was referred to as the "scriptures" was not the Bible we have today. What they had then was what the jews have today as the torah, parts of which is contained in the old testament.

That does not mean that the NT had no bearing collectively as 'Scripture'. One principle of a prophet was that he spoke the very oracles of God - whether he spoke it directly, or that he wrote it down himself, or that others acted as his scribe(s): what they spoke was scripture. People who complain about what Scripture should not be and who canonized what and why, etc, are themselves unable to tell us what exactly they would call 'Scripture'.

God in His wisdom gave the Scriptures to us in a way that would confound the hard-wired brainy braggarts who deem to themselves superior in intellect to always present problems about 'scripture' and themselves never able to categorically say what precisely they hold as 'scripture'. This is why I have often and again asked that those who are happy to slice what books they cannot include in scripture, should tell us what in their spirituality would count as 'scripture'. Surely that would not be a difficult thing to do, since we often hear them say that the 'Spirit' tells them in their hearts what and what could be called Scripture. As soon as they can do this, I would gladly lead them to see what they are doing to their own faith. The problem here is that they have never taken the time to understand these matters, and that is why it becomes increasingly easy for them to misconstrue one thing for the other.

@huxley,

Thanks again for yours. I'm quite refreshed when my assumptions are closely examined and critiqued, for that is what helps my understanding of the realities of our observable world. Let me note just this line in yours briefly:

huxley:
To summarise;

Facts ---> Natural parts of reality
Theory ---> Human-developed explanatory framework of observed facts.

I remember the discussion we had on that, though just too lazy at the moment to track it. However, my joy is that we all have come a long way to understand that a theory is not to be confused for the fact. If you remember, I was constantly trying to make the point that a theory was susceptible to alterations, while a fact remains constant (unless and until something directly affects its nature or structure).

In all, thanks for the reminder.

Cheers.

huxley:
2) Hubris

What does this statement really mean? What can it mean? That is an interesting way to use the word "hubris"

Hubris means - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Is this what you meant?

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. "Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this overbearing pride or presumption!" That statement does not mean that I concluded dear Pastor had indeed bought into this "arrogance"; but he only sounded so! What could I possibly mean, and does it make any sense at all?

Supposing I said rather: "you are sounding as if you have bought into this arrogance", would that statement be carried at all? It all depends on the function of that word or clause in the way that statement was formulated - in this case, it is a noun appearing at the end of that statement.

But leave the semantics and grammar aside for now, and rather ask if it still carries any meaning as applied to what it was connected with? What exactly was the hubris (or hybris) pointing to? It was rather pointing to the "arrogance" in now populist idea that scientists "are happy to confess that they are speculating and making conjectures." This is quite an arrogance in itself because we know that many scientists do not like their works to be written off merely as "speculations" or "conjectures" - they state and postulate their theories as facts! The idea that some of these folks are "happy to confess" to some conjectures and speculations are met with stiff-necked dogmatism from them!

huxley:
Does that make any sense at all? I know you are in the habit of using (or misusing and abusing) this word (hubris), charging critiques of religion of displaying hubris.

It makes perfect sense if you took the time to read it in its context, as explained above! However, you're misreading my use of that word as "charging critics of religion". If a naturalist becomes too driven with his naturalism, one would have to call the bluff, because what such a naturalist is doing also falls within the paramenters of "charging" religiously inclined thinkers with all sorts. So, I don't agree with you that it has been abused - at least not in this case. However, i'm open to see how it might have come across to you as such.

huxley:
But how can that be? The critiques of religion are the first to admit ignorance of a lot about reality. However, the religionist claim to know not only God but also his mind. Who is displaying greater hubris in this case?

I shall refrain from charging anyone at this moment, so I'm not going to say here that the "critics" or religion are either way more guilty.

The one thing to constantly keep before us is this: science is not a worldview as naturalism and religion. Naturalism is NOT science, nor is religion science. But both science and religion are concerned with different kinds of questions; and those who understand these paradigms are not shy at all in stating that science should not be used to adjudicate over supernatural phenomena. It is in this sense that you cannot use a naturalist mindset to peer into the supernatural! To always confuse these grounds is the reason why many people fall back to the pride of atheistic dogmatism.

huxley:
3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists

No, no, no and a zillion times NO! One could clearly state the obvious that, as long as worldviews are concerned, atheists thmselves who hold everything as "science" are quite dogmatic! It would be meaningless to allege dogmatism or hubris against "scientists" - for science is not to be accused of atheistic and naturalistic dogmatism!

huxley:
This is quite some charge and you could make your case stronger if you could give examples of scientists acting dogmatically

As long as we know what "dogmatism" really is, here is just an oft repeated example: "Dawkins The Dogmatist". Dogma and dogmatism are not to be confused.

huxley:
4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

Oh certainly, huxley, certainly. I would only beg you to hold on for now and let me see Pastor AIO's rejoinders to mine - especially as regards "dark matter". there are very interesting things I need to show him in this regard. That I am reserved on this at the moment does not mean I don't have any examples.

However, to a far lesser degree, we know that Einstein's theories were moderated/adjusted after having been celebrated, wasn't it? I shall come back afterwards to make the connection.

Thanks again for your neat appraisals, very much appreciated.

Hallo huxley,

Quite a while we discussed, and I would like to open with something in yours:

huxley:
Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

I haven't been making vacuous accusations, and in just a bit of what follows, I shall oblige by pointing out some scientists who are as dogmatic as you assume to hold only in terms of religious reviews.

huxley:
Interesting turn of phrase, Pilgrim. I have taken interest in the following from your quote;

1) Dogma and dogmatism
2) Hubris
3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists
4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Good delineation, I very much appreciate.

huxley:
1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. (Source : wikipedia.)

All propositions and theories in science are only held tentatively. Any scientist who says otherwise is really not a good scientist. The philosophy behind science is to avoid dogmatism. The fact that all scientific propositions are held only tentatively does not mean that they are not held with certainty and with conviction.

Now, now, dear huxley. . . calm down. Lol.

Wikipedia, if you notice, did not apply dogmatism only to "religion" - it also includes (rather politely) that dogmatism is also found in other 'ideology or any kind of organisation'. To this end, we know quite a lot of atheists who are as dogmatic in their assertions as to occlude the validity of other opinions that do not square with theirs. We could just look up the simplistic definition of dogma by Wikitionary -

In its etymology, dogma is given as -
From Latin dogma philosophical tenet,
from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) opinion, tenet, literally that which
one thinks is true, from dokein to seem good, think (see decent).
Treated in the 17c. -18c. as Greek, with plural dogmata.

As to its noun by the same Wikitionary -
'An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion,
especially one considered to be absolutely true,
regardless of scientific proof.'

Now, dear huxley, without the bias that "dogma" has often been used solely today for religion, could we deny that the same elements of its etymology and application goes precisely descriptive of the assertive attitude by naturalists with an atheistic leaning?

Let me break this down: we are often told (usually by assertive atheists) that "science" only states its postulations tentatively without assuming anything to be held as "authoritatively". Granted. I noted that is what they say publicly to private friends. However, with a little more prodding, these same assertive atheists are inclined to do just the opposite of holding anything tentatively! What they do often is assert their worldview as "authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion" especially considered as "absolutely true" - and in most cases, without scientific proof.

Now, don't get mad at me so we don't lose focus here. I am often told (as you have done), that science states thing tentatively; but I note also that the same "science" is used to state things in a dogmatic way! There's no denying this, if Wikitionary as stated above is true - unless it is false, then I do not see how atheists should assert anything as "absolutely true". . . which is what you have sadly done below:

huxley:
There are many theories in science that are NOT in dispute today, namely atomic theory, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, etc, etc. All scientist welcome new ways of looking at things and also welcome challenges to establish theories. For science would not have achieved such great successes if it was dogmatic by nature.

The only question I would ask here is this: are you not the same person who once argued to make the theory of evolution a FACT?!? You see, huxley, what I often observe people do is confuse or blur the lines of these discussions. If something is to be held as "tentative", there is no coming back to present that same tentative postulation as a FACT! Presenting it as such would only make people further ask if you're stating such a theory as an "absolute truth" (remember here that the "absolutely true" is defined in Wikitionary as one of the elements of "dogma"? It would only mean that while you decry "religious dogma", you nevertheless are quite at home to present another type of "dogma" - and this is where you certainly do not have a moral ground to assume a superior station to point accusative fingers at anyone.

I have observed already, that religion and science ask very different questions - and they answer these questions quite differently. But for many of us, we deem to read everything in a linear perspective, and in many instances we become the victims of our own arguments!


A second thing I need to clear here is this:

huxley:
1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogmatism. Here is a very different level of assertiveness than simply adhering to dogma. What's the difference anyway? Here, let's see (from Wikitionary):
_______________________________________________________________________

The manner or character of a dogmatist; arrogance or positiveness in stating opinion.
_______________________________________________________________________

It is a maxim that one could state a dogma quite with a humble spirit; but it is also true that one can state his opinions in dogmatism. Are we not already seeing this very thing among many naturalists (and even religious people as well)? Dogmatism, I dare say, is the philosophy of people like Dawkins . . Okay, okay, I know - the mere mention of his name churns the stomach; but besides him are very many other "scientists" who are quite well known for their dogmatism rather than the humble spirit of an open-minded enquirer.

Just to remind you of one small example, please see this review.

I do hope that we try to keep these two things in distinction - because many people mix them up and assume that "dogma" and "dogmatism" are just terms bandied synonymously, whereas they are not.

Lol, would you be willing to stand in as my invisible lawyer?

Pastor AIO:
I get the idea from the fact that such definition tell me nothing. And not only me, they tell nobody nothing (yes, I can mangle the english language too). And it seems, dear pilgrim.1 that your definition has told you nothing either.

If you're hoping everybody reads and argues the reductionist way you do, I'm sorry to observe you're quite in a class of your won with no grounds to stand on.

Pastor AIO:
Oh, I do think we need to be fastidious with this subject, if not tedious. Anyway, as I can tell from your dialogues with Huxley, Tedium is not somthing that you shy away from.

I don't shy away from engaging people anyday - if in all honesty they would not be promoting the sort of vacant assertions you have made your world into. If I offered that we should not be tedious on the subject and that is not enough for you, please invite me to your world and let's waste this dogmatism in yours that has repeatedly failed to see simple issues.

Pastor AIO:
I believe I've already addressed this issue. But to summarize, the answer is because Science sets itself different parameters from religion.

Granted - I already recognized that and went one step further to explain their relationship.

Pastor AIO:
I never said that you said that an entity had to have mass before it could be recognized as a reality.

It sounded suggestive in your reply earlier, that's why I queried why you seem to be in the habit of inferring what is not stated in mine.

Pastor AIO:
And, actually you have tried to define spirit with physical indices, but negatively.

Oh, so I did. Sorry. Until you hear me speak in tongues before you delineate the distinctions? Dear sir, I want you to understand that using an example is not the same thing as equating them or comparing them, no?

Pastor AIO:
Saying, spirit is not this and spirit is not that, blah blah blah. And as for that idea of spirit not being 'composed of matter as we know it', talk about giving yourself room to maneuver!!!

I wasn't doing any such. Spirit IS incorporeal is a not stating what it is NOT.

Pastor AIO:
Hey, Dark matter is not matter as we know it either, maybe you could come up with a theory of Spirit being Dark matter. LOL!

I didn't say so, and dark matter IS matter.

Pastor AIO:
While I think it's a diversion away from the main point, I want to indulge this issue of dark matter. okay? What is a fact is that there are many area of space where matter and light behave as if they are being drawn by a strong gravitational field. What is causing this behaviour? Is there a source of this gravitational field? Since the only thing that we know that exerts gravitational pull is Matter it makes sense to presume that there is a lot of matter in these regions of space. However, we do not see any matter there. That is why scientists have come up with the idea of Dark Matter, matter which cannot be seen. It is a hypothesis and given the boundaries which science has set for itself, it is allowed to make such hypothesis. God didn't tell them that there is Dark Matter. They are guessing, we know that, they know that, everybody knows that and it is absolutely no big deal. Dark matter does not have a definition. We don't even know if it exists. Something that might not exist doesn't have a definition. All we know is strange phenomena in Space.

No one rejects them because they are well within the parameters that science has set for itself.

Your super-highness AIO, my lawyer is not present here, sir. But could I make some observations?

First of all, since my lawyer is not present and you cannot see him, does that prove he does not exist? Does that also prove that he cannot be defined - both by what he is and what he is NOT? More to the case, sir, does that mean that he cannot be contacted in some other way? But again, since God did not tell you that pilgrim.1 has a lawyer, does that negate the fact that she actually does? if you want to find out, please just find my trouble and leave me your address - without gravitational force, you will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt afterwards!

Lol, okay, here's a smile: 

You see, Pastor AIO, these logical synthesis in yours simply does not hold. Phew - broaden your horizon, bother. . . there are a plethora of entities discovered by science which God did not tell scientists anything about! Yet, most of those entities behave exactly as you complained against:

       - they are invisible

       - they may not be defined specifically in some ways

       - they behave in some ways to display some gravitational properties

       - their detection are not the result of guesswork, sir.

Matter - all known matter plus those whose nature are imperceptible - behave dynamically, and we cannot assume that they should all behave exactly in some parameters. That is why new discoveries are being made, which have not been the result of guesswork (for hypothesis is not to be reduced to such simplistic ideas as "guess work". Science doesn't have to wait for anyone to tell it anything - so I don't think that it is a valid reaction to state that God did not tell scientists "this, that, those, or the others". Quite the opposite, scientists are many times honest to admit that there are entities and phenomena that science may never be able to explain, given that their natures are quite distinct from what science is able to investigate!

Pastor AIO:
I'll repeat, Dark matter is not a reality. It is an hypothesis used to explain a phenomenon in space. That phenomenon has positive attributes that define it, ie it emits a gravitational pull, yet contrary to matter that also emits gravity, we cannot see it so we call it Dark Matter. It might not even be matter at all, but for now we are calling it dark matter.

Sir, dark matter is matter - it does not have to be seen in order for it to be called "matter". It behaves like matter, and not "contrary to matter". If you want some other very informed work on this, I'm available for a discussion of the same. Just that it is held as a hypothetical entity does not mean it is non-existent; something which is in existence but which scientists know it there but cannot specifically identify does not necessarily therefore mean it is not a reality.

Pastor AIO:
You on the other hand have failed, quite abjectly come to think of it, to provide any positive attributes to Spirit. You have only said what it is not. At least Dark matter emits gravity, what does your Spirit do?

See why I said you're being overtly simplistic to have misread my post? Thanks for assuming that I had failed abjectly to say anything positive about what a spirit is. But I did mention positively that a spirit is incorporeal; and what does it do - it permeates solid physical bodies. I did not say that it does not permeate bodies, for that would be a negative attribute, no?

Besides, when I said that a spirit in its essence is "incorporeal" does that necessarily mean that I have stated what a spirit is NOT instead of what it actually is? Did I not explain what that term means, rather than what it is NOT? Did you take time to read what is said or you were deliberately looking for holes to puncture, your highness AIO?

Pastor AIO:
Excuse me, but modern science is not religion.

Did I say they were the same anywhere? Could I make a very simple appeal when discussing an issue? Please, could we just learn to refrain from assuming what nobody is saying and then springing up from such fausse patte?

Pastor AIO:
Scientists do not claim to have the truth revealed to them from above but are happy to confess that they are speculating and making conjectures.

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris! So many, many natural scientists are quite often dogmatic and are too secure in their assumptions and presumptions to state theories as FACT! They do not call them "speculation" or "conjectures"! This "happy to confess" harrumph is why other scientists have sadly noted that science itself is not understood for what it truly is - because so many "scientists" are abusing its significance by speaking fom both sides of their mouths! It is really sad to note that people would be going about with the kind of statement in your quote, and that is one reason why many people get so confused by this dogmatic idea whereas we know for a fact that many scientists are too assertively certain of their postulations!

Pastor AIO:
This difference in claims gives Scientists a lot more leyway to make mistakes and speculate.

oh, really? Is that what science is all about? Hmm, I wonder if we're about to be bogged down by another endless discussion on the philosophy of science.

Pastor AIO:
They then go out to seek proofs of their hypothesis, but even if they found proofs, those proofs can still be overturned in light of further evidence at a later date, and if they don't find proofs that is no big deal either because they've already admitted that it was only an hypothesis.

Listen to yourself! Even if they find "proofs", the same "proofs" can still be "overturned". . . please visit Dawkins et al and try to convince them that Evolution has no "proofs", and even if they had "proofs", such "proofs" could quite possibly be "overturned". Simply put, Pastor AIO, this is just teasers - you're only assuming abstract thoughts and not what is on ground. These fellows will not be so condescending as you are trying to make them sound, for they are very well known to be so dogmatically assertive! This idea that "it is no big deal" if they don't find "proof" is a blithe. If they don't find "proofs", then what the baloney would make them be so assertive in the first place?

What is happening here is that you're seemingly operating from a loose end on this enquiry and using that presumption to knot issues further for yourself. Two things, please: (a) yes, many, many natural scientists are indeed dogmatic, and they do not condescend to your idea above; and (b) yes indeed, entities can be [and have been] defined with terms descriptive of what they are not.

To fail to see these two important things is (probably) the reason why you may be reading issues wrongly and arrogating a finalist tone that "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT"! Please understand that such a finalist tone is simply erratic.

Pastor AIO:
You degrade religion by setting it side by side with science for comparison. Leave that to the atheists.

I'm sorry, pilgrim.1 is not guilty as charged. Let me acquit myself:

I have not degraded religion by using examples in science to explain supernatural phenomena. By using those examples, I have not sought to degrade religion, nor have I juxtaposed (or set "side by side" science and religion. Even science does not shy away from using religious terms in describing purely natural (please note, not "naturalistic", but 'natural') phenomena in philosophy of science.

Secondly, atheism is not synonymous with science. Asking that I leave this "comparison" to the atheist is quite wrong, your lordship AIO. What we should understand is that most honest skeptics and atheists are, in IMHO, asking questions that are sensible, intelligent and thoughtful, even in this regard. The only thing is that quite often the questions seem to be pointing to one thing: can these phenomena be understood in naturalistic terms rather than supernatural terms? I think this is a very important point that so many people miss. I'm not afraid to engage any atheist any day - and the first thing I always want to find out is if such an enquirer is an honest one of not. If he is honest enough to understand what we propose to engage to discuss, then the first premise to note is that: (a) atheism is NOT science; and (b) religion is NOT science either.

These two (science and religion) ask different questions and seek to address those questions differently. The problem for many is that they are trying to use a purely naturalistic worldview to overwhelm the supernatural! I have said to many of my atheist friends off this forum that both atheists and theists do science, and science is not to be worshipped or held as superior over what it cannot adjudicate in the supernatural. Quite often, these fellows sadly hoot so much about science as if it is to be misconstrued for atheism (such as Dawkins supposes); but they seldom (if ever) come to the realization that atheism is not science at all!

Now, if we remind oursleves of the idea you posted above about "proofs", what can the atheist say? That is purely atheistic language, your highness AIO! It says before the public face that it is not assertive, and all they do is merely "speculation" and "conjecture" - sir, that is what they say publicly to private friends! However, a little prodding will reveal how dogmatic these people tend to be - for not only are they assertive, but your honour, you should also get them arrested and tried on your court for trying to pass their conjectures as FACTS in the public arena to public friends! Often have we hear them say: "if we do not find proofs, so what's the big deal?" But if we call their attention to the theories they pass off as facts, then they either shout us down scornfully and ask that we never assume they ever said anything about HYPOTHETICAL matter or presumptive theories! It seems that other thinkers can be shouted down these days for calling their bluff, but we often are sequestered when we speak about supernatural entities!