₦airaland Forum

KnownUnknown:
Trust me when said, it is fur.
Keep and stick with the 'double entendre' theme and explain how the servant placing his hand in Abraham’s fur is a double enterdre.

Well, using fur as part of oath taking isnt part of any custom I am aware of.
Fyi, 'double entendre' suggests association with being risqué. Nothing risqué with or about fur bro

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Well, using fur as part of oath taking isnt part of any custom I am aware of.
Fyi, 'double entendre' suggests association with being risqué. Nothing risqué with or about fur bro

Well, using fur as part of oath taking was the custom in the days of Abraham but you’re unaware. Luckily for you there’s always a first time to know.

Fyi, 'double entendre' suggests association with being risqué. Nothing risqué with or about fur bro except when you’re aware that the placement of the hand underneath the fur is close to or inside the butthole.

KnownUnknown:
I removed the footnote references. Read it again and see if the Bible writers have any problems with prudishness like you imply.

Genesis 15:13-16
13God said to Abram,
“Know for sure that your descendants will be strangers [living temporarily] in a land (Egypt) that is not theirs,
where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.
14But on that nation whom your descendants will serve I will bring judgment,
and afterward they will come out [of that land] with great possessions.
15As for you, you shall [die and] go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16Then in the fourth generation your descendants shall return here [to Canaan, the land of promise],
for the wickedness and guilt of the Amorites is not yet complete (finished).”

Deuteronomy 2:19
But when you get close to the Ammonites,
do not harass them or provoke them,
for I will not give you any of the land of the Ammonites.
I have given it to the descendants of Lot as their possession."

Bro, you've misunderstood me. I have never said that the bible writers are 100% prude. There is a time and place for everything.

Even on this forum, we mention certain words differently, if not, it automatically gets altered by the bot, if it doesnt earn one a ban

There nothing in Genesis 19 about prudery, also, not nothing about prudery between Lot and his daughters.

What I see in both narratives, is a no holds barred account, of what transpired. We are taken on a journey, with given written account of how circa 400 years later, the Canaanites and Amorites will come to loggerheads with the Israelites

Meanwhile Lot's descendants, as you can see in Deuteronomy 2:19 above are looked after and well taken care off.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

KnownUnknown:
Well, using fur as part of oath taking was the custom in the days of Abraham but you’re unaware. Luckily for you there’s always a first time to know.

I humbly would love you show me, where using fur as part of oath taking was the custom in the days of Abraham. Thank you

KnownUnknown:
Fyi, 'double entendre' suggests association with being risqué. Nothing risqué with or about fur bro except when you’re aware that the placement of the hand underneath the fur is close to or inside the butthole.

I didnt want to be graphic, but you sure do want to pull my hand.
Butt hole has nothing to do with having procreation prowess, so, yeah, you forced me say it. Eliezer was asked to put his hand under Abraham's JT

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
I humbly would love you show me, where using fur as part of oath taking was the custom in the days of Abraham. Thank you

I just did. Eliezer placing his hand under Abraham’s fur has been shown to you. You’re welcome.

NNTR:
I didnt want to be graphic, but you sure do want to pull my hand.
Butt hole has nothing to do with having procreation prowess, so, yeah, you forced me say it. Eliezer was asked to put his hand under Abraham's JT

Of course the butthole has nothing to do with procreation prowess (except for the men and women that like that type of stimulation). Regardless, placing of the hand underneath the fur and in or around the butthole is the way oaths were taken in the days of Abraham.

NNTR:
Exactly science is doing catching up, in so many areas

Thank you for your opinion though, however for the record, my contribution on this thread wasnt to shore up evidence for Adam and Eve stories, but simply to, with my response, stay within the limiting range of 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Your response was not scientific proof of anything. LoLz.

NNTR:
Deuteronomy 2:19
But when you get close to the Ammonites,
do not harass them or provoke them,
for I will not give you any of the land of the Ammonites.
I have given it to the descendants of Lot as their possession."

1 Samuel

11 And it was so on the morrow, that Saul put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the host in the morning watch, and slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day: and it came to pass, that they which remained were scattered, so that two of them were not left together.

NNTR:
It is known from biblical proof that the word 'rib' , obtained from the Hebrew word צֵלׇע ṣēlā', also translated as 'flank' or 'side' in the story of Adam and Eve, is actually a mistranslation of a Biblical Hebrew euphemism for baculum, and that the hinting of the removal of this bone, from Adam, in the Book of Genesis, serves as part of a creation story, to explain its absence, in addition, as well as, justify the reason for the presence of the perineal raphe in humans (i.e. the resultant 'scar')

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

---

LordReed:
Your response was not scientific proof of anything. LoLz.

I know. There isnt any, hence the reason for my intro disclaimer (i.e. It is known from biblical proof that the word ...)

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

KnownUnknown:
1 Samuel
11. And it was so on the morrow, that Saul put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the host in the morning watch, and slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day: and it came to pass, that they which remained were scattered, so that two of them were not left together.

1 Samuel 11:11
1Soon Nahasha the Ammonite came up and laid siege to Jabesh-gilead.
All the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treatyb with us, and we will serve you.”
2But Nahash the Ammonite replied,
“I will make a treaty with you on one condition,
that I may put out everyone’s right eye and bring reproach upon all Israel.”
3“Hold off for seven days,” replied the elders of Jabesh,
“and let us send messengers throughout Israel. If there is no one to save us, we will surrender to you.”

You're being disingenuous giving an unbalanced account of event bro

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
It is known from biblical proof[/u][/b] that the word ...

Why don’t we have dragons anymore?

Brave men killed them, it is known.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72FkbGo78RQ

NNTR:
1 Samuel 11:11
1Soon Nahasha the Ammonite came up and laid siege to Jabesh-gilead.
All the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treatyb with us, and we will serve you.”
2But Nahash the Ammonite replied,
“I will make a treaty with you on one condition, that I may put out everyone’s right eye and bring reproach upon all Israel.”
3“Hold off for seven days,” replied the elders of Jabesh,
“and let us send messengers throughout Israel. If there is no one to save us, we will surrender to you.”

You're being disingenuous giving an unbalanced account of event bro

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I’m not being disingenuous. I said the Ammonites were later massacred and you tried to deny it.
As for the excuse given in the story, there is no reason why it should be accepted. The Israelites always have a “reason” their bloodlust afterall. Also, if someone wants to “put your eye out” during war, why would he wait 7 days for you to send for reinforcements? Lol

Also, the passage you posted is about them not taking the Ammonites land.
What happened to the people in the land lord god gave them? You know lord god gave them the land but forgot to tell the inhabitants.

KnownUnknown:
Why don’t we have dragons anymore?

Brave men killed them, it is known.

h ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=72FkbGo78RQ

Men like to talk when they are happy.
Famous words in the film.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Men like to talk when they are happy.
Famous words in the film.

And men make up stories, it is known.

KnownUnknown:
I’m not being disingenuous. I said the Ammonites were later massacred and you tried to deny it.

After they fell out with each other, treachery which is not a good thing to pursue soon followed

KnownUnknown:
As for the excuse given in the story, there is no reason why it should be accepted. The Israelites always has a “reason” their bloodlust afterall. Also, if someone wants to put your eye ou during war, why would he wait 7 days for you to send for reinforcements? Lol

Logistics of deploying forces problem

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

KnownUnknown:
And men make up stories, it is known.

Nah so. Nahin

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
After they fell out with each other, treachery which is not a good thing to pursue soon followed

Treachery is a value of lord god and his favorite people as seen by their actions in the stories.

NNTR:
Logistics of deploying forces problem

Lmao. More like glaring plot hole in the propaganda

NNTR:
Nah so. Nahin

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Nah so. Nahin. That’s how ribs become dick bones. It is known.

KnownUnknown:
Treachery is a value of lord god and his favorite people as seen by their actions in the stories.

Lmao. More like glaring plot hole in the propaganda

Everyone is a living, walking construction, work in progress building site.
No one is the finished article

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Everyone is a living, walking construction, work in progress building site.
No one is the finished article

Everyone is a living, breathing vehicle, work in progress in a moving line assembly.
Some are finished articles and are being driven to the parking lot while others are getting the second coat of paint.

KnownUnknown:
Nah so. Nahin. That’s how ribs become dick bones. It is known.

Exactly, yeah, its true meaning got redacted or lost in translation, by errors by of omission or errors of commission.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Exactly, yeah, its true meaning got redacted or lost in translation, by errors by of omission or errors of commission.

Exactly, yeah, its true words got redacted or lost in translation, by errors by of omission or errors of commission. Even Adam’s true name is lost. It is known.

KnownUnknown:
Everyone is a living, breathing vehicle, work in progress in a moving line assembly.
Some are finished articles and are being driven to the parking lot while others are getting the second coat of paint.

Er, not exactly so.
Physically speaking,you are right, but if abstractly speaking, no.

Even in the physical world, fruits take time to grow, ripen, mature et cetera to order.

This is the reason for the omission thats apparent in Genesis 1:27. It is mentioned in Genesis 1:26 as a requirement, but its AWOL in Genesis 1:27

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:

---

---

---

I know. There isnt any, hence the reason for my intro disclaimer (i.e. It is known from biblical proof that the word ...)

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

He didn't ask for biblical proof.

LordReed:
He didn't ask for biblical proof.

I know he didnt ask for biblical proof. However 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?' is an offshoot of a biblical narrative account

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
I know he didnt ask for biblical proof. However 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?' is an offshoot of a biblical narrative account

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Great so you where just writing stories. Thanks for clearing that up. LoLz.

LordReed:
Geat so where just writing stories. Thanks for clearing that up. LoLz.

I was giving a biblical illuminating account about the 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?' query, which as I earlier mentioned was stirred up from OP being befuddled by the Bible's Genesis 2:21-22 passage

As for stories, look at what the personal text below says.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
I know he didnt ask for biblical proof. However 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?' is an offshoot of a biblical narrative account

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Lol, 3 or 4 more other mythology books have this story.

NNTR:
I was giving a biblical illuminating account about the 'Is There Any Scientific Proof That Women Were Created From From Men's Ribs?' query, which as I earlier mentioned was stirred up from Op being befuddled by the Bible's Genesis 2:21-22 passage

As for stories, look at what the personal text below says.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I said thanks for clearing it up already.

Maynman:
Lol, 3 or 4 more other mythology books have this story.

The fact that there are counterfeits, on top of another fact, that the same counterfeits, have had good head starts, does not stop one, from appreciating a genuine because when you see the genuine, you don’t deal with counterfeits anymore

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
The fact that there are counterfeits, on top of another fact, that the same counterfeits, have had good head starts, does not stop one, from appreciating a genuine because when you see the genuine, you don’t deal with counterfeits anymore

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

That means it is the book in your bible are the ones that are counterfeit.
The book you are quoting is a tanakh book, centuries before Christianity was created.

So Christianity is the counterfeit and judaism the fact.

Or how do you determine the original and counterfeits?

NNTR:
Luke 24:27
'Then beginning with Moses and [throughout] all the [writings of the] prophets,
He explained and interpreted for them the things referring to Himself [found] in all the Scriptures.'

Pleased to see you take to the Tanakh correction. I doubt you know what Tanakh stands for or represents, so you hardly wont understand that the Old Testament conceals the New Testament, while the New Testament reveals the Old Testament.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

---

Maynman:
That means it is the book in your bible are the ones that are counterfeit.
The book you are quoting is a tanakh book, centuries before Christianity was created.

So Christianity is the counterfeit and judaism the fact.

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just attach it to a new wagon and if or where necessary, realign it, and put your own spin on, so to make the wagon run smoother

Christianity, fyi, is a Roman invention, if you must know

Maynman:
Or how do you determine the original and counterfeits?

2 Peter 3:3
Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days
scoffers will come, mocking the truth
and following their own desires.

Cynics, skeptics, scoffers, mocker, naysayers et cetera personally haven't earned the right to know how to determine the original and counterfeits

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:

---

---

---

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just attach it to a new wagon and if or where necessary, realign it, and put your own spin on, so to make the wagon run smoother

Christianity, fyi, is a Roman invention, if you must know

2 Peter 3:3
Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come,
mocking the truth and following their own desires.

Cynics, skeptics, scoffers, mocker, naysayers et cetera personally haven't earned the right to know how to determine the original and counterfeits

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

the books of the jews that makes up the tanakh you call Old Testament is a counterfeit of a counterfeit, and the New Testament created by Chrestians in rome is also a bunch of counterfeit.
The first New Testament called codex sinaitucus is the MOST DOCTORED AND EDITED DOCUMENT IN HISTORY.