₦airaland Forum

Baldwretch:
You are misunderstanding me. I did not say that the Jews are the only righteous people in human history because they had the law of God. I said the Jews were the only ones in human history to have received a law from God and to be to be in a covenant with this same God, the Abrahamic god. No other nation on the face of the planet has had this privilege. There is no record of any. Not that I or even you know.

Yes, there might be extremely few humans, definitely outnumbered, and yes it may so happen that in an ancient city, we find one, two, or three people God is particularly pleased with despite never having received his laws, but I am thrusting on the words of Muhammad because he is piggybacking on a false claim of being a messenger, on being the last messenger, and on the fact that he is a prophet from the line of Abraham. His claim falsely argues that people can be instructed, scolded, and warned by a prophet when they have not received God's law and they are not in a relationship with him or even know him. That is error.

Now, on Balam - Balaam is not Jewish, granted, but the nation of which he is resident neither received, nor know the one true God. They were eventually destroyed, you know, and there is no record that God bonded with them at any point which tells a lot. God does not destroy the nation he loves and has bonded with unless they become very rebellious. We can't even tell that he pleased God. Job is not Jewish, yes, but how does one righteous person amidst the multitude negate my statement. A man can still be righteous even if he has not received God's law, but that is speaking statistically, like winning Royal Flushes in a game of Poker. Jonah is a Jew. He is mentioned in the book of 1 or 2 Kings 14 after prophesying about an event that eventually happened. Jethro isn't, but we can't tell if lived well or not.

And all I have mentioned thus far does not in anyway give conclusive evidence or even indicate in the slightest way that these "righteous ones" were sent to their own people by the same Abrahamic God that instructed Moses in the Burning Bush. You see the problem. I hope you see it. Did he send them? Actually, the question should be, did he give these ones or the lands where they lived in his life-giving laws? there is no Judgment without a constitution, after all. The judgment is read from the constitution. God is not an unjust judge, sir.

The Mistake you are making is that you take the Bible alone as the only revealed book.



I need to ask you the more important question. Is the Zoroastrian holy book inspired by the same God that appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush? Clearly, the answer is no. I don't even have to read the book to give a definite answer. The book is a document myth and folklore passed down the ages and so also are all the others you mentioned or think of. We don't know where the wise men came from or what nationality they are in. All we know is that they came from the East. There is no correlation between the Magi/Zoroastrian Faith and the Christian God.

Baldwretch:
No, you don't have the rights to quote from the Quran because the Quran claims that

1. The Quran, claiming to emanate from the Abrahamic God, has not substantially proven the authority it claims it has. As an authority and the first on the matter, the Torah proves itself. The Quran needs to be proven to be true since it came after, but sadly, it has not been proven so.

2. Its prophet is from the line of Abraham, but earlier revelations makes no such claim. In addition, there is nothing like a prophet without a law, and since the Arabs were never at any point in their history given the law of God, the Abrahamic God would not send a prophet to them to promise a great reward or to warn of his judgment. As I said earlier, the judgment is read from the constitution ,sir. No constitution (law), no judgment and hence no prophet. God is not unjust.

3. The Quran cherry picks earlier revelation as truth. It scuttles through the whole revelation; dismissing some, modifying others, and accepting a few as truth. This does not look like a book to take seriously if you would be thought of as coming from the Abrahamic God. I would not have problems with Muhammad at all if he claims to be a prophet from the line of Zoroaster or Hindi .

Lukuluku69:

1. The Yorubas believed in a Creator God. He has others Orishas (The Chosen) who run errands or assist in Creation.

Lukuluku69:
3. The Quran came to correct errors made by men in their presentation of God. The Jews/Israelites claimed that God only spoke to them, you agreed that God spoke to Ballam. With that alone you have just called the Jewish scribes Liars because God only speak to them.

Also Jonah was sent to me whole City. Are you saying the inhabitants don't know God? Remember they repented!

Baldwretch:
Yes, God spoke to Balaam, but we are not told that he was ever instructed to teach the people the ways, the judgment or the commands of God. There is a big difference. God talks to whom he pleases, yes, but he also does things consistent with his nature. That is like saying God should be able to make a squared-circle because he is all powerful. NO!

The story of Jonah is one that I have wrestled with recently, though. Since the ancient Kingdom of Assyria were never in a covenant with God, there should be no judgment from a prophet to the people of Nineveh from the Abrahamic God. I am still on it, though, even though I believe with utmost faith and with absolute confidence that the book is inspired. I am just looking for an explanation for the difficulty.

However, opinions are what they are - opinions. So much for the opinion that your own opinion is the right one and mine is an error despite writing mine more than a thousand years before you were even born. So much for the selective dyslexia from Muhammed. So how do we know what is truth and what is error when some are just factual information that cannot be proven from the text or with all bits of information. For instance, the Bible said Isaac was to be the sacrificed animal while the Quran said Ishmeal is. Now, both cannot be true. The bible has no reason to lie, the Quran does have good reasons to. Besides, the Bible never hides the sins of the people. We have been able to read some of the saddest, sordid tales of idolatry, incest, rape, murder, thievery, departure from God even by some renowned prophets, and all sorts of depravity - yes, in the bible. Those were not hidden, so why would it conceal so insignificant an information when there was no contrary or competing opinion at the time? So which is right and which is the factually wrong information?

FxMasterz:
I'm actually enjoying your inputs. They're very logical and sound. I will keep following your arguments till the very end. Please accept my commendation.

Permit me to clarify the Jonah/Assyria problem. I don't need to speak in many words because I consider you a very smart personality.

FxMasterz:
Now, let's talk about Jonah and the Assyrians. The situation is simple. Even though God did not have any prior relationship with the Assyrians, neither He had at anytime given them a law to observe, He still had the right to judge them by the natural law - the law of the conscience. Everyone has this law irrespective of whether you know the Abrahamic God or not. Since He is the Creator of the whole world, He can administer justice through the law of conscience which is a universal law. That is why God didn't send Jonah to warn them for not worshipping Him but for their wickedness which they themselves never denied. They knew themselves to be indeed wicked. The king had to call for a national repentance. They knew because they had the law of conscience, and they knew that there's a God in heaven.

Baldwretch:
having read your piece, I have to admit that you are living up to your username: a master in theology, good judgment, and excellent manners/morals. I salute you sir. Accept my heartfelt handshake.



I thought about the "natural law" and the law of conscience you just talked about and I actually hinted at it in a separate discussion sometimes back, but this creates some difficulties one might actually find very hard to untangle. The problem is, okay if God sends a messenger to implore a particular people or tribe who do not, in fact, know him and have never had any covenant or intimate relationship with him; if he sends a prophet (to them) to warn them of their natural wickedness and and the people did, in fact, repented of their sins, but have no knowledge of this God, or who even made the command, and have never had any genuine relationship with him and cannot accurately grasp, appreciate, or love his persona, then their repentance is meaningless, unsound, and of no effects whatsoever. It creates a terrible echo chamber that: evil is vile and bad because it is bad, and not because God forbids it. If God cannot get people to repent because of him, then I don't think there would be any motivation to do so, or to send a messenger if the people think they are doing it for a god after their own imagination, or for a local god they already serve. Experience should let you know that it's only a matter of time, they would be worse off than they actually repented. I cannot overemphasize the importance of knowing, worshiping, appreciating the one true God FIRST before doing any kind of services including repentance (because of him) and I think God wants that first. God would be glorified by the least bit of human action that FIRST acknowledge his existence, else such turning from sin has no weight and God would not need to command it.

Let's say a man, fearful to look at, came to your house in 7th century Oyo Empire when your entire family and those around you were babalawos and what have you, and said he got a message from God. Would you take him seriously? Would you even know what he means? Oh maybe I should ask you the more important question: would the Abrahamic God need to send a messenger to such a nation to warn them of what me and you would call "natural laws" and the laws of conscience?

My device screen is going off and on. I would continue tomorrow

tctrills:
Again you are wrong. The origin of every day is Holy. God made the days so no day belongs to the devil or to idolatry. Just because some idol worshiper chose a particular day doesn't make that day evil. Remember Psalm 118: 24 This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. No day was made by or for the devil.

The beauty of Christianity is our freedom. We are not slaves. We keep God's commandments as stated in the scriptures; beyond that, we can decide what we celebrate or don't. For Christians as long as an action isn't against God's will as stated in the scriptures and taught by his spirit, we would not be condemned for it. Anyway, I don't blame you. I completely understand why this will be difficult for a Muslim to comprehend. Do you get it now?

If for example, I choose to celebrate Jesus Christ's walking on water every Eid al-Fitr day, as long as I am not breaking any commandment and I am observing the word of God, it will not be counted as a sin unto me.

God created us to be different and he understands that we will worship him in our different ways. That's why we don't have a central time for prayer.

One more thing. Now this is my opinion. Remember that the angels in heaven celebrated the birth of Christ? So it's not a very crazy idea for humans to do the same. Or what do you think?

Baldwretch:
Yes, God spoke to Balaam, but we are not told that he was ever instructed to teach the people the ways, the judgment or the commands of God. There is a big difference. God talks to whom he pleases, yes, but he also does things consistent with his nature. That is like saying God should be able to make a squared-circle because he is all powerful. NO!

The story of Jonah is one that I have wrestled with recently, though. Since the ancient Kingdom of Assyria were never in a covenant with God, there should be no judgment from a prophet to the people of Nineveh from the Abrahamic God. I am still on it, though, even though I believe with utmost faith and with absolute confidence that the book is inspired. I am just looking for an explanation for the difficulty.

However, opinions are what they are - opinions. So much for the opinion that your own opinion is the right one and mine is an error despite writing mine more than a thousand years before you were even born. So much for the selective dyslexia from Muhammed. So how do we know what is truth and what is error when some are just factual information that cannot be proven from the text or with all bits of information. For instance, the Bible said Isaac was to be the sacrificed animal while the Quran said Ishmeal is. Now, both cannot be true. The bible has no reason to lie, the Quran does have good reasons to. Besides, the Bible never hides the sins of the people. We have been able to read some of the saddest, sordid tales of idolatry, incest, rape, murder, thievery, departure from God even by some renowned prophets, and all sorts of depravity - yes, in the bible. Those were not hidden, so why would it conceal so insignificant an information when there was no contrary or competing opinion at the time? So which is right and which is the factually wrong information?

AntiChristian:
Days to mark idols are not holy! Sunday is to worship the sun! Monday is for the moon! So when you mark Christmas or new year you're following the pagan script. It is clear there was no precedence from God or any Prophet!
My God did not create any day to worship idol. Everyday is to worship him and celebrate him.

This is either Ignorance or falsehood. 1. Paul allegedly said in Romans 6:16:
[b]Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?[/b
Again you don't understand the words you read. The facts that we are servants of God actually liberates us and frees us. The verse you quoted has nothing to do with the argument.


But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
I don't know the version of the bible you use. Mine says servants to God. Very big difference. You need to state the version of your Bible.

Luke also said in Acts 3:13
[b]The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
Here we see Jesus relegated to being a servant of God by Luke.

(Many Bible translations including NKJV used "Servant Jesus" in the above verse but KJV, Catholic and Aramaic Bible translation used "son Jesus". Amplified Bible decided to used "Servant and son Jesus" showing amplification of course. Young's Literal translation used "His Child Jesus".)
[/b]
You don't really have a point here. The bible states that we are Gods sons as well as his servants. It's super simple. As his sons, we serve him and work in his vineyard.


Did they blast fireworks, greet one another merry Christmas or kill chicken or brandish their houses with pagan Xmas trees?

FxMasterz:
Thanks brother for the commendation.

FxMasterz:
I have only one response to all you have said so far. Yeah, I can see the depth of what you're hitting at and fully understand your valid points even though you are yet to complete your post as you indicated in your last sentence.

This is the only response I have: God does not want anyone to do anything because of Him. He just wants you to do the right things. That's all. Always doing the right things is what brought up the word "RIGHTEOUS". That's all God wants.

FxMasterz:
Micah 6:8
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

What God expects of every man including those Ninevites:

1. Act justly

2. Be merciful

3. Be humble before God.

Anyone doing the above 3 is doing the right things, and would be acceptable to God even if he or she does not know God. The babaláwo family in your analogy would do well to do the same if they know within themselves that indeed they're wicked.

FxMasterz:
God loves it that way - do the right things, not because of Him but because it's the right thing. This is the best way to live because even if God ceases to exist, you'll still continue to do the right thing.

This is one of the areas I have problems with many of us Christians. We want to do the right things because of paradise and because we don't want to go to hell. That means if there's no more paradise and God announces that there's no more hell, we'll just immediately become as evil as the devil.

It is good to do the right thing whether God is there or not. That's the kind of human beings God wants. Just as I as a father want my children do the right things whether I'm there or not, and not just because of me.

Lukuluku69:
On Ishmael and Isaac, God told Abraham to take THINE ONLY SON for sacrifice (which was a Test) I ask you, at what point in Abraham life he had an ONLY SON? Was it not when he had only Ishmael? When Isaac came he has TWO and not an Only Son.

I do not expect you to see that because the training is to ignore what is obvious and stick with the lies told over and over again.


You guys says Ishmael is not a Legitimate son I can only laugh at such laughable insinuation because Jacob wives Rachel and Leah also gave their handmaiden to Jacob and they had kids for Jacob. They are the so-called Tribes of Israel. So, why make meat of one and fish of the other way they are both same?

Lukuluku69:
This is from the Bible yet the same Book in Amos says God only speak to Israel. So, who is the Liar here?

Lukuluku69:
You agreed that God spoke to Balam, you also agreed that God spoke to Job and some few men who are not Israelites after the flood.

Jonah was raised to speak to the inhabitants of Nineveh (The Bible says some 120,000 inhabitants) and we read that they repented and God spared their City from destruction yet they weren't Jews or Israelites.

Baldwretch:
Good! Good one. Welcome to the party. I am more than pleased to serve you breakfast and lunch.

Okay, so it jollof rice, fried rice, or both you want for breakfast, or maybe you wanna eat one of my favourite snacks Dankwa made from tiger nuts, or maybe it's big-big tiger nuts, or Nkwoba, or Isi Ewu (goat head), or spaghetti and all sorts of assorted added, or......

DO you want? You want? Just tell me what you want to eat I am more than ready to have you served chicken wings, friend potatoes, toasted shawarma, baked shit, camel legs or whatever (served on your very table) for lunch? What do you want to eat sef?

Well, newsflash. God did not. God didn't even reveal himself to MOST nations of the world and here you are, here you are talking of God revealing himself to ALL nations of the world. HA! What a bold, bold, audacious claim. You said what again? Do you have one, not two, even one, not two, I need just one documented evidence that the Abrahamic God (who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush) revealed himself to another human race, tribe, or ethnicity and gave them his laws at any point in their history? Can you prove it? DO you have one?

The burden of proof is on you to show that God revealed and covenanted himself to at least one other nation besides the Jews. It's on you to prove, not on me to disprove because the glaring evidence before us says there is none. At least we have no documented record of any.

See, if you can prove it, then I would believe you and retract my claims, but the truth is, YOU CAN'T. Not that I have excess but for the sake of this discussion, I can even motivate you with a little wads off naira note to get you to do your research and share it here with me. I guess God revealed himself to the Yoruba race before we embraced African Traditional religion too. Lol.

I'd tell you what God said through Amos the the third chapter and second verse of his book: From among all the families on the earth, I have been intimate with you alone. That is why I must punish you for all your sins.”

Moses asked the Israelite in the book of Deuteronomy: "Has any nation ever heard the voice of God speaking from fire—as you did—and survived?"

Of course, none.

Baldwretch:
Thanks for thanking me. Lol. . So I was typing and poof - NEPA pafuka the light!



This would inevitably lead to questions: where did we get our morality from; is it from ourselves or from something outside us? And we'd be asking another question, is morality really subjective or objective?

Morality, my dear, is not objective. It is subjective. God decides what is right. There is nothing like absolute morality. Some seemingly "good" things or events are bad because God says they are and vice versa.

Now, let's talk about our first parents, Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve and their Fall, if anything, should inform me and you that morality is subjective, not objective. God impressed upon Adam and on his offspring that He is the ultimate standards of right and wrong. God impressed on him by an innocuous command that morality is neither here nor there unless what he says and by his permission.

If God requires that whole communities including babies, infants, and animals be burnt to ashes (as he commanded to the Israelite who would eventually enter the Promised Land), then the command itself and the people's action afterwards is actually a very good one. That it was a punishment for sin is a lazy coup-out. Everyone don't get punished for sin. And everyone who committed the same sin don't get punished the same way, after all. Warfare cannot even be said to be a punishment for sin. That action of theirs (The holy War, so to speak) is actually a righteous and godly action!

Or what of the fact that He hardens people's hearts, demands obedience from them, and then punishes them when they don't oblige. We can't explain the morality of these actions objectively. God is called the sovereign LORD for a reason. Sovereignty and objective morality are not c- related terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. God's will has to be free and outside the forces and balances of nature because he created nature. There is no moral justification to impute another man's unrighteousness on his descendants, and yet, we find in Holy scriptures and by experience that women experience pain during childbirth because another sinned. Men suffer from dawn to dusk tilling and striving very hard to make money because Adam sinned. There is no moral justification whatsoever for this.

I didn't sin, some would boldly say. I certainly do not deserve to be tried in another man's stead. I am going to take the matter to court, haha.

If God's action were tried in a secular court, the depraved wretch of a judge would be screaming guilty-guilty, guilty as tried!

But God is neither guilty nor under obligations to submit to natural laws. What I am saying is this, God never requires his creatures to do something because it is right, it is right because God says so. The order is important. God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong so that whatsoever he says is right is right.

God's judgment, his decisions, his actions are right and good and fair and are sometimes at variance to what we know as objective truths. It has to be then that God is not bound by objective morality, such that whatsoever he does is......... yes, you got it right - RIGHT! Whatsoever he does is right.

You brought up the subject of Adam and Eve. Now on Adam and Eve, they were given a command to NOT eat of a certain fruit. We know how it turned out. But the question I would like to ask you is this: Did they commit a morally wrong action? Is it morally wrong to eat an Apple or whatever the fruit is? What God commanded them NOT to do, is it a morally wrong action? Eating Apples? Of course, the answer is a NO! Is eating Apples morally right? YES, because it is good for your health - as it contains some essential vitamins and minerals. But that action of theirs became bad because God commanded it. You see the point I am trying to make that God does not want you to do the right thing because it is right, but because he commands it. It is always all about God, not whether an action is good, or beneficial ,or helpful.

In fact, the very fact that there are always exceptions to every rule proves that morality is not objective, but subjective. If morality were objective God should never have permitted wars and in some instances commanded. Why? Warfare is just as bad today as it was many, many years ago. If morality were, in fact, objective as you are saying, then women should be able to marry many husbands are many many wives.

Like mathematicians do after a mathematical proof -QED! I hope I have QED!





The passage you just quoted can also read: Act justly before God. Be merciful before God. Be humble before God. These still proves what I have been saying all along.

On the Bablawo, it seems you have difficulty grasping the times and seasons of the past. A Babalawo repenting by eloquent words of the mouth? NO! A man who has encountered and enjoyed immense power from his god giving you minutes of his time? NO na!

Besides, the god he serves has given his own laws which the babalawo and the whole community abide by, so why would he/they want to obey another law from another god? He is just as zealous for his god as you are for yours.

In fact, the same can be said of the whole community. This is the thing, God's law sometimes agrees with the laws of the god whom he serves - like, for example, the law on murder. Now, if the god he serves expressly makes it forbidden (for community members) to commit murder, why would the Abrahamic God send a representative to make the same command? Is it that the god they serve is not as powerful or he is not doing a good job?

You know as well as I do that the devil wants worship at all cost and would shit his pants out if men begin a blood-letting campaign. If that happens, there would be no worshiper left to worship him. What good then is sending prophets to rebuke men of natural laws or the laws of the conscience as you put it when the babalawo and the community have received something similar from their own oracle?



You have not understood the concept of the Abrahamic god. He is more than life; he is life itself, more than breadth, he is breadth itself. Whatever anyone would do that is not done because of him is invalid, null and void, and of no consequence whatsoever. That is why the first and most important commandment of all the commandments is to have no other god besides him. He is the fountain, the spring, the decider and the source of everything. It is simply untrue that right or wrong are independent of God. God decides what is and what is not. Extrapolating you and your kids for God and his creature is false equivalence. E no follow at all.

I agree with your number 3, it is the highest and the loftiest of all righteousness. God did not create man to live in a moral you can "the right thing to do" there is no right or wrong without God.

tctrills:
Actually yes. There was a new star. A star is basically fireworks. And there was singing. Is that not celebration enough.?

AntiChristian:
So celebration is singing and showing of stars?

Alright!

I've had enough!

tctrills:
You can get enough when ever you want. But if you claim that the angels did not celebrate the birth of Christ, it's either you honestly don't know the meaning of celebration or you are just trying to be dishonest for the sake of argument.
But In case you are truly honest and you don't know the meaning of celebration, here is a copy and paste from the dictionary.

acknowledge (a significant or happy day or event) with a social gathering or enjoyable activity.

Lukuluku69:
You guys says Ishmael is not a Legitimate son I can only laugh at such laughable insinuation because Jacob wives Rachel and Leah also gave their handmaiden to Jacob and they had kids for Jacob. They are the so-called Tribes of Israel. So, why make meat of one and fish of the other way they are both same?

AntiChristian:
I agree with you that Angels singing and the showing of Stars are Christmas celebration on every December 25th in the Bible. The Angels did celebrate the birthday every year till Jesus died. Even till today their fireworks star can still be heard!

An Angelic gathering is a social gathering which can also be enjoyable! Biblical Angels can drink wine!

tctrills:
Ok now your point is that the angels did not do it every year so those celebrating it every year are sinners right? Well it's clear that you are only looking for faults.
The bible clearly defines what is sin and what God hates. Trust me when I say that the yearly celebration of Christmas isn't one of those things. If God has no problem with it, who are you to decide it is wrong?

AntiChristian:
Show me where God forbids Gambling in the Bible? Why are you not a Gambler? If God has no Problem with it then who are you to decide it is wrong?

And what stops you from celebrating other pagan festivals like Halloween, Yam Festival, Egungun festival, Amadioha festival, etc?

tctrills:
I actually celebrate new yam festival. Why shouldn't I thank God for the harvest. And in Igbo land the new year festival is the beginning of the year. I don't celebrate Anadioha festival because I don't worship Anadioha. And I think Halloween is super fun.
When it comes to gambling, the bible warns against covetousness. Gambling is basically coveting other people's money and taking people's money that you did not work for.
Also, about gambling, the bible clearly condemns it.
Proverbs 13:11
Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
Gambling is a get rich quick scheme and nothing more.
Are you cleared now?

AntiChristian:
The Bible never mentions gambling but you're quick to include it in covetousness. I know you guys well. You can talk from both sides of the mouth. Yet, you celebrate pagan traditions and say God does not frown at it.

All are from your own exegesis and eisegesis!

AntiChristian:
The Bible never mentions gambling but you're quick to include it in covetousness. I know you guys well. You can talk from both sides of the mouth. Yet, you celebrate pagan traditions and say God does not frown at it.

All are from your own exegesis and eisegesis!

tctrills:
Come to think of it, this is a bit rich and hypocritical coming from you a Muslim. The holiest site in Islam, the Kaaba was taken from idol worshipers and converted to a place of Muslim worship.

Now you shamelessly accuse Christians of stealing a day from the idol worshipers as if God is not the maker of every single day. Can't you judge Christianity the same way you judge Islam?
Then you equate Christmas celebration to gambling. How does that even make sense? A day people celebrate the Saviour of the World compared to gambling just for the sake of arguing on Nairaland.

Baldwretch:
I told you I am still on para mode and would be coming for you. I woke up this morning to type this. You are yet to respond to what I asked you.

Okay, like I asked earlier, if a widow has a son, Ade, and a late husband, Bolato. Let me reiterate: her son's name is Ade and husband's name is Bolato.

If she then says - my dear husband, my one and only husband Ade.

Remember, Ade is her son, not her husband.

Would she be in error, or be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken?

This scenario is even a bit off since we said the husband is late. Let me use another one.

If a woman has a husband Ade, not late but still alive, and a son, Bolato. Let me reiterate her son's name again. He is called Bolato and her husband's name is Ade. Here, I have interchanged the names and titles.

Now, if she says - my dear husband, my one and only husband Bolato.....

Or if she says - my dear son, my one and only son Ade.....

If she calls each of these by what I just typed, would be in error, or just be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken? Would the parties involved have confused/conflated who is been referred to?

Okay, this is still not as close.

If a woman has three sons, in the order they were born and these sons are 25 years apart: Tolu(first), Mosa(second), and Dele(third).

Now, if she - my son, my only son Dele
Or, if she says - my son, my first son Dele
Or, if she says - my son, my one and only son Dele

If she spoke this way in the presence of all her kids, would all three present have misunderstood who is been referred to? Would she be in error, or just be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken? Would all the parties involved have confused/conflated who is been referred to as Tolu even though Tolu is actually her first son?

The answer to all of these questions and scenarios I have put forth is a clear and a resounding no. Of course not. The person being referred to is clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The people present would neither accuser the speaker of forgetfulness nor think she is mistaken. There would be no confusion on the matter.

The thing is this, titles cannot trump explicit identifiers especially known names when used side by side in the same sentence. Names are also identifiers like titles are, but they trump and smack whatever title is being used used by side with it. Whenever a title is being used before a name or even after a name, the name takes precedence and carries more weight. When a contradictory title is being used side by side with a name, the title does not misidentify the name. Names misidentify titles, and not the other way around.

This is common sense.

Clearly, the mischief in Muhammad's mind is so big, so glaring, so loud that even a honest toddler can see it. If he cannot get this basic stuff correctly, he cannot be trusted to have good judgment. It follows from this that his judgment is extremely poor. QED.

Baldwretch:
To be brutally frank with you sir, I am quite upset I had to answer this objection first! This is mischief taken too far. I am so-so upset with you for raising this silly objection. Are you so bereft of any iota of wisdom? Are you pulling my legs and whining me for nothing or something?

Would the writer of the Genesis account be so impish, so foolish, so silly, to make a promising blunder of this magnitude if that were not what God said of Isaac? Does God have to be politically correct down to a title when he interacts and talks with his beloved about what concerns them? Has it not been made clear through the circumstances surrounding the whole saga from the get-go that Isaac is the promised son and should be seen as a reference, not Ishmael, in God's dealing with him? Besides, is Isaac and Ishmael the only sons of Abraham? Is the timeline of events not crisp enough (for me and you) to read and understand? Do we have to nitpick every statement God makes to support whatever narratives we might have despite how clear the scripture passage might be? Is God suffering forgetfulness that he could not help but interchange names with titles in the same line? If God says Isaac is Abraham's only son, are you going to factually check mark him?

If the passage had said - your only son - without giving further details about who this only son is, would that still support your position? NO, of course, it would not! I would show you why. Would God expressly say - your only son and goes ahead to identifies the only son as Isaac in the same line - and turns out the passage actually wanted to say - your only son Ishmael - or that God had a slip of tongue, or that the author misplaced titles and names despite how clear his narratives has been up till this point? Doesn't the story-line makes it very clear that at the very point in time God issued that command Abraham had only one son in his care? I am so upset.

Let's look at the passage in contention again.

Genesis 22, my translation the NLT starts off with the words: Some time later, God tested Abraham's faith....

In the KJV version, it reads: And it came to pass after these things that God did test Abraham....

Both of these passage are quite clear and same the same thing, namely, that what follows subsequently, what you are about to read from that point onward happened after the chapters before it, not before it. You are quite literate.

The KJV says - after these things - what things?

And the NLT says - some times later - later, when?

Now, this should be more obvious, more common than even common sense.

Again, the timeline of events is very clear. In fact, that is true of all of Genesis. For instance, the events in chapter 2 follows from what happened in chapter 1 of the same book. The events in chapter 7 follows from what happened in chapter 6 and downwards. The stories are sequential in order. It would be arguing in bad faith, for example, to argue that the destruction of Sodom happened before the world was created, or that Joseph was thrown into prison before Abraham's son Ishmael was born.

Why am I hitting on this? The reason is because you are arguing in bad faith! It's so crazy that you're trying hard to use words and meanings to further a narrative not told and not implied in the text. The first verse of that chapter said sometimes later God tested Abraham's faith. The passage said after what has happened so far God tested Abraham's faith. After what exactly had happened? After all the events in the chapters before it, but specifically the chapter just above it - namely chapter 21.

But what happened in Chapter 21? Ishmael and Hagar are driven away. Who is the only son left at the time Abraham was asked to carry out this test? Remember, the passage in the very first chapter makes it clear that what happens in it happened after the events before it. Now, my question to you is this: If Ishmael and Hagar had long been driven away and no longer live with Abraham, would it be a blunder and out of place to refer to Isaac as Abraham's only son, speaking casually? If a woman is a widow and is fond of calling her first son her husband for whatever reasons, would that be a blunder? Another question, if Ishmael was born naturally by coitus and Isaac was born at the age of 90 and 99 years by God's divine intervention, would it be out of place of God to refer to something he gave not naturally but supernaturally as an only son putting in mind that he had said he is going to be the focal point of the covenant?

Another question, if the author of the book makes a statement and simply says - your only son - in that passage allegedly from God without giving further identifying details of who this son is, who would it be? If the author commits a blunder and identifies the only son as Isaac, a blunder done in error, how is it that the same name is scattered in different verses of that chapter? In English if we say - so therefore - what do we mean?

I am still coming for you. I am still on para mode.

Now, you also said,


In Amos' prophecy , the bible does not say, in the verse I quoted earlier, that God spoke only to Israel. On the contrary, it says God has been more intimate with Israel more than any other nation. It is quite clear. A man might be more intimate with his wife (more than any other woman), but that doesn't mean he does not have other women on the side. Amos is not a liar, the fact is obvious for people with an unbiased mind to read. God has been more intimate with the Jewish race than any other human race on planet earth. If you don't agree, can you prove it to me that there lived a race, a tribe, or a nation whose people saw God in their thousands, if not millions, received his Laws, covenanted themselves with him, agreed to obey his laws, received hundreds, if not thousands of prophets from him, saved these revelations for current and future generations and make bold different claims and prophecies. You can show us how these prophets or the people chronicled their relationship with God and how it panned out through several millennium, you can show us how these people or prophets chronicled how their relationship with God panned out outside their own territory through several years when they were exiled. Let's read and talk about the plans their God have for them, both present and future. Can you show me another nation with a record of this magnitude?

And like I asked one guy, does he(Muhammad) think he can briskly walk in and rewrite history with a few strokes of his pen? Then he must be crazy!







Like I said, God speaks to whomever he pleases, but he does things that are consistent and are in consonance with his nature. God spoke to Balam through his donkey, so speaking to sinners and saints alike does not prove much. Besides, the exception does not disprove the rule. God has a way he does his things. Yes, he spoke to Job, but there is not so much known about Job. Job is one of the oldest, if not the oldest book of the bible; written around the time of Genesis, so we cannot trace Job's lineage as the passage does not talk much on that. We can't say he is not Jewish; we simply don't know. I am not going to discuss the other subject now, Jonah, until I can find a definite conclusion on it.

Lukuluku69:
TENQ come and see your brother. Typing empty meaningless drones thinking many words equates to making sense!

Lol


L

Lukuluku69:
You agreed that God spoke to Balam, you also agreed that God spoke to Job and some few men who are not Israelites after the flood.

Jonah was raised to speak to the inhabitants of Nineveh (The Bible says some 120,000 inhabitants) and we read that they repented and God spared their City from destruction yet they weren't Jews or Israelites.

This is from the Bible yet the same Book in Amos says God only speak to Israel. So, who is the Liar here?

On Ishmael and Isaac, God told Abraham to take THINE ONLY SON for sacrifice (which was a Test) I ask you, at what point in Abraham life he had an ONLY SON? Was it not when he had only Ishmael? When Isaac came he has TWO and not an Only Son.

I do not expect you to see that because the training is to ignore what is obvious and stick with the lies told over and over again.


You guys says Ishmael is not a Legitimate son I can only laugh at such laughable insinuation because Jacob wives Rachel and Leah also gave their handmaiden to Jacob and they had kids for Jacob. They are the so-called Tribes of Israel. So, why make meat of one and fish of the other way they are both same?

TenQ:
Hello Lukuluku,
I wish you the best of this year and also for your family.
The responder did not type meaningless things as you have alluded, however, he may not be used to having a conversation with you Muslims as usually, you don't care for reason nor history not truth as you are willing to bend ANYTHING just to correct the errors of Allah and Mohammed in the Qur'an as well as the problems in Islam.




What is/are your issues with what he said?

tctrills:
[quote author=AntiChristian post=133556539] Don't add lies to your sins now. Abraham built the foundation of the Kaaba with his son Ishmael. So it was the idolaters that later hijacked it long after their deaths. And the Muslims retrieved it later.
Don't you see the irony here. You claim that Abraham built the Kaaba and idolaters hajacked it from him but you can't give God the same courtesy. God created all days including December 25. The idolaters hajacked it. Judge Christianity with the same measure you judge yours. Stop applying different standards. That's so hypocritical.
There are many things you can criticize the modern christian for but for celebrating the birth of the Savior of the world is just looking for faults. Muslims celebrate Abraham's actions yet they say Christians don't have a right to celebrate he who is greater than Abraham. And they tell us that the day belongs to the Sun god. My dear friend, the sun god has no day, that's even supposing that a Sun god really exists. Because we know who created the sun and who has power over the sun. All days belong to the Almighty. So really, what is your point?

Lukuluku69:
He reasons like a Retard and types voluminous empty drivel as you that is why I mentioned you or is he your twin brother?