₦airaland Forum

My primary purpose on posting, as always was to pose my position regards gospel truth. That is, weigh it against what I feel is being posited by other posters. They are a number of things which, if time permits, I will yet touch on regards this thread.

There are however other concerns that I am impressed to touch on. In all, I would sum them up as an “imprecatory” attitude, which, is not Christian. Menacing and often vengeful in its deployment, I would advise God-fearing people to refrain from it.

The first is a threat of divine retribution - typically accompanied by a self-arrogated status above other believers - when challenged or, if perhaps the cut and thrust gets heated. It is not necessary or befitting.

Secondly, there is the recourse to labelling. Typically labelling contrary posters Satanists, witches, Jezebels, or in some way possessing a demonic spirit. Indeed, there may be times where this is the case, it may even be glaringly apparent. The truth is real instances should actually be handled more sensitively. We wrestle not against flesh and blood.

Mostly such descriptions are not applied legitimately, but spitefully at best. By all means point out people’s errors, resist scripturally and with scripture, but let us eschew these kind of attacks.

The third, and possible worst, is something I’ve only seen on this thread. The notion that Christians that suffer illness are somehow lesser beings, or that there suffering is as a result of sin and, further delighting in the claim as a sort of judgement is in Christian terms, far beyond the pale.

In fact, if I had not counselled against labelling above, I may well be throwing around a few choice names myself at this point. This 3rd point could perhaps use a scriptural rejoinder?

This kind of thing can only take a downward trajectory, and can become culturally embedded if not stopped in its tracks. Believe me, this board will offer little by way of edification if it descends to that.

Many have fallen short here. In the hope that it will stop, I’ll not name and shame. Please, a word will hopefully be enough. On the contrary, let our words be seasoned with grace, me included. I know I can be testy .


May The Lord help us all
TV

OkCornel:
In other words, you cannot tell us the number of books the scriptures is limited to.

The essence of the scripture is the gospel. As long as that is captured whole in the canon, why does this question arise? Please make a concise point here.

OkCornel:
The boundaries of ALL TRUTH lies in God. He is the only being with the absolute monopoly of truth.

From the POV of Gods unfolding plan of redemption, the saving work of The Lord Jesus Christ, do we need truth outside the "Gospel Truth". Or put anther way, is there "truth" outside the gospel that is required to make our calling and election sure?

Yes God knows everything, do we need to know everything likewise? And specifically, do we need to know in order to apprehend the gospel. The "All Truth" from the scriptures has a context and application. Yet you would use that from the scripture to render the same scripture void?

Please make your points substantive. Give examples of truth not revealed in scripture which would materially change the gospel message or Christian orthodoxy. Kindly detail some of this unwritten truth for us to consider

OkCornel:
And yet knowledge and prophecy are some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism is soul led. If you are led of the Spirit of God, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH (be it written or unwritten). Do you know the difference between soul led knowledge and spirit led knowledge? It is what is leading you that makes the difference i.e. your soul or the spirit of God.

And any such knowledge or prophecy will perfectly accord with the gospel as revealed. If it is a "personal" intimation, then it has no need to be "generally published" or a concern of the body, and will not materially change the gospel or orthodoxy.

Further, there are other spirits out there that a person can be led by. Your insistence that The Holy Spirit leads people into general revelation that is yet unwritten needs to be supported by evidence.

OkCornel:
1. Are you disputing the fact that Truth proves itself with the passage of time?
2. Per the bolded, does the Holy Spirit still move today? If he does...and yet such moves are not canonized...does it make it not the word of God?

1. Another statement in which I struggle to see any substance? Yes, truth does prove itself over time, does that mean it cannot be immediate. The proclamation of Jesus' divinity by Peter which you love to point to - did that have to incubate? Unction was given, it was spoken and it has endured. Has the truth of the gospel in any part been falsified at any point?
2. Yes the Holy Spirit moves. Case in point, convicted me and revealed Christ to me, does that need to be canonised?

What is the point of insisting on canonical additions or changes or expanding the canon if the gospel is not materially changed? And, if you have any "truth" - written or unwritten - which does just that, please share, or this whole exercise becomes rather pointless - for it's own sake

OkCornel:
My question remains unanswered. Which scripture or written truth did Peter refer to in his time to receive insight that Jesus is the son of God?

I did answer. It was unction given by the Holy Spirit and uttered in that age, during that time of Gods unfolding purpose. It is now canonised as scripture. You are attempting to make a point for extra-canonical scripture, by referring to something that is canonised? I also pointed out that Jesus could be discerned from the scripture extant at the time.

OkCornel:
So that means John was wrong to mention all the acts of Jesus could not be written?

The acts that were written were comprehensive, if not exhaustive. Note the point in scripture about the huge effort that would be required to record all The Lords acts. It did not need to be an exhaustive record. That which was captured details all we require.

The prophecies about The Lord said inter-alia, he would heal, set free etc. Multiple instances of all those things are captured. Again, what is your point?

If John records the truth of Z number of miracles, yet The Lord actually did 70 x Z, are we somehow missing truth? Is the gospel patchy or otherwise insufficient. Please present something substantive.

OkCornel:
I will share some of my experiences as time goes on. Although, it does not in anyway invalidate the written gospel.

And like I said, if it doesn't invalidate the gospel or materially add to it, then it's not-canonical. If you claim there are sent apostles and prophets in this age who have material general revelation, then please provide evidence for us to consider.

Kindly share some of this unwritten truth with those of us who hold dearly to the written truth of the gospel - let's see practical application of the "truth" framework you provided, otherwise it remains baseless and merely assertive

OkCornel:
You mean just as the early believers between 33 AD to 96 AD were susceptible to confusion and deceit?

1. If Jesus capped the words of God to His acts and miracles in His lifetime...what becomes of the writings of the Apostles?
2. If the Apostles capped the words of God to letters written in their lifetime... what becomes of the Epistles of early church fathers like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen e.t.c. or you mean those men were not inspired by the Holy Spirit as well?

That susceptibility would have been in part due to the lack of an authoritative canon
1. I made no such claim - more later.
2. That is besides the point. They early church father writings are here, we can read them. Do they contain anything that materially changes the gospel? Then they do not need to be included. Do they edify?? Then they can be read. Where they inspired. Did they claim inspiration? And even if they were, does every inspired utterance or writing have to be canonised?

OkCornel:
Please how does the lie of Ananias and Sapphira revealed by the Holy Spirit to Peter fit in this context?

Asked and answered - exactly the same as Peters proclamation about The Lord Jesus Christ.

OkCornel:
Lemme ask you, are all text outside of the Bible not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If by all text you mean all Christian type text, or all claimed holy text I don't know, and from a gospel perspective I don't believe I need to.

OkCornel:
And isn't your message here contradicting John's admonition of the Holy Spirit leading believers into ALL TRUTH?

I see the error here as thinking all truth means "everything about everything". The angel proclaimed to Zacharias whom he was and how he "stood in the presence of God" and had been sent.

Now, I suppose that through time, there have been numerous instructions from God to Angel Gabriel and a number of significant events as a result. Do I need to be led into the truth of them all? Do I as a gospel believer, as a Christian need to see the meeting minutes. Will they be in any way instructive or guide my walk?

Your use of "ALL TRUTH" is nebulous at best Substantiate what import this usage has, if any, with real detail.

OkCornel:
Please read verse 13 again. Did it say the Spirit of Truth will lead you into some truths?

Kindly read through to verse 15, there are clearly parameters to what the "all" consisted of. And as always, you are invited to show otherwise.

OkCornel:
No, you are missing the point. Which scripture spoke specifically against the Nicolaitans prior to the revelation John got? If indeed all scriptures were supposed to be capped and canonized at a particular point in time?

I shouldn't have to, but for expediencies sake; The NT canon is essentially the life of he Lord and the acts and experience of the Apostles. When The Lord was here on earth and when the Apostles were around the canon was essentially with us (and being played out, filmed in a sense) but not all written. Those who could refute the heresy with direct testimony where as it were, on ground. Now they are not and we have a completed canon. This is no longer that very specific apostolic and foundation era.

OkCornel:
1. Does the Holy Spirit still move people to witness?
2. What witness do modern day Apostles have? The fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You know these or don't you...
And TV01, so I take it that everything on the TRUTH is limited to what is written isn't it? This is a classic case of mistaking the written TRUTH for complete TRUTH. Every written truth you have today was once upon a time unwritten.

1. Yes
2. Indeed, I woul dthat you would first show how we witness to those claiming to be "modern day apostles. As for the gifts and fruit, Again yes. Indeed the gifts for the church are clearly outlined and the fruits are evidentiary/testing tools

I don't mistake anything. My point is that the written truth of the gospel is sufficient for the Christian apprehension of Gods redemptive purpose in Christ Jesus.

OkCornel:
Truth in its purest form is unwritten, observable and proves its authenticity over time. You cannot dispute this. Call me over-sabi if you like...but that's what the Truth is. Lol...after all, even Paul got similar remarks in Acts 26 v 24.

I was being polite calling you over-sabi . And kind when I term this another unsubstantiated statement

OkCornel:
I guess you have shifted the goal post to imply unwritten truth counters written truth. Please I am still looking for where I mentioned unwritten truth automatically invalidates the gospel TV01.

No I haven't. I am asking you to demonstrate your claim to unwritten truth. Specifically where it materially alters the gospel. Either by yourself or one of "the modern day apostles" you bear witness to. This should not be too onerous and present an end to all discussion .

OkCornel:
You keep on emphasizing on the product (scriptures) as the first point of reference rather than the source (the Holy Spirit).

For your individual walk with God, by all means go direct - that is my byword. But for family of potentially billions, separated by a number of things, how would you present a unified message to them all? What nation has a leader who alone knows the constitution and presents it to each citizen individually?

OkCornel:
That is tantamount to placing the cart before the horse.

As you please

OkCornel:
After all, Satan still quoted scriptures to Jesus in the temptation at the wilderness. I pray tell, how did Jesus overcome except by the help of the Holy Spirit providing guidance. Or was it not the Holy Spirit that led Jesus to fast in the wilderness in the first place?

And the guidance that The Holy Spirit gave was scriptural references. The leading into the wilderness was about The Lords personal mission. Are all believers required to go into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil as part of their walks?

OkCornel:
I'll give you another poser.

1. What scriptures did the likes of Adam or Enoch consult in their walk with God?
2. What scriptures did the likes of those that lived in the days of Enosh consult in order to call upon the name of the Lord in Genesis 4 v 26?

1. Really . Let me put it like this - when I am physically present with my wife, I am not reading the letters she has written me
2. The pre-flood patriarchs lived vast ages. There was much generational overlap and there would have been a strong oral tradition. From the beginning, the presence and knowledge of God was real and known.

Adam communed with God and all his immediate descendants would have learnt about this. They couldn't not know who God was. Even Cain and Abel conversed directly? They understood what led to the post-fall state.

See, I read non-canonical writings and appreciate some non-scriptural truths, hoping to glean insights that can be woven together .

Unless you have something that clearly demonstrates the truth of your assertions, I believe we are all but done here. I possibly have a further note on some of my observations here and that should be it for me. I no get stamina for 80 pagers again jor.


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
I need you to clearly tell us what the inspired scriptures are. Are the scriptures limited at 66 books of the Bible? Or does the scriptures include more than 66 books.

By now you should know there is no general consensus in the Christendom as to what the number of books makes up the scriptures.
1) The first version of the KJV Bible (The 1611 KJV Bible) contains more than 66 books.
2) The Ethiopian Bible (which is one of the oldest bibles in existence today) contains more than 80 books, are the books outside the 66 books not inspired of the Holy Spirit? I need a clear answer along these lines. .

I have responded to this previously, but again; as long as the canon contains the gospel and a true representation of Jesus Christ - his divinity, his death, his resurrection, his perfect and completed work - along with instruction for the fullness of Christian life and conduct, with nothing that contradicts or otherwise compromises, I have no problem with some variation in what differing denominations consider as canon.

In the same way I have little issue with most of the bible version available. Even the ones I would typically steer far clear off can be compared against a plethora of others for balance.

I have read a number of ex-canonical works - I loved Jasher - including Enoch, but in as much as they did not in anyway contradict the gospel, I have no problem with them.

The fact that there is not 100% agreement on what represents canon in no way falsifies the gospel. And it is reaching to suggest there are other texts or claimed revelations that must be considered canon or equivalent to canon, just because they are true or even inspired.

OkCornel:
I have answered what ALL TRUTH is here;
https://www.nairaland.com/5252047/cultism-spiritual-consequences-deliverance-through/78#82029437 .

I asked for the boundaries of all truth. You provided a taxonomy of sorts, which, is no way attested to by the scriptures.Actually it is, in that it falls into the "Greek" box.

Is there knowledge and truth outside the scriptures? certainly. Is the knowledge and truth required for a revelation of Gods redemptive purpose, the salvific work of Christ and the fullness of the Christian life within the scriptures, absolutely. One does not need the latter to avail of the former.

It smacks of gnosis, hence my reference to the "Greek seeking for wisdom/knowledge". One need not need be a genius, a prophet or a seer. Indeed the NT amply falsifies all such notion for all who put their faith in Christ.

OkCornel:
1. Let me give you another instance. Which scripture did Peter read, or which additional witness or internal coherence did Peter need to expose the lies of Ananias and Sapphira? These were believers as well. .

An instance of a verified Apostle being led by the spirit? Yet non of your submissions have really addressed my initial question regards verification in any detsil. Further, this was immediate action by the Holy Spirit, not something proven true "with the passage of time" which is another notion you frequently resort to. What happened was a move of the Holy Spirit and is now canonised.

OkCornel:
2. You have also left the initial question I asked you on Peter unanswered. Which scriptures/internal coherence did Peter obtain to get the revelation Jesus is the Son of God in Matthew 16 v 15-16...when Jesus asked everyone who He was?
Which written truth (scriptures) did Peter refer to at that point in time before knowing Jesus was the Son of God? Whereas others were calling Jesus...John the Baptist, Elijah, Prophet Jeremiah or one of the prophets?

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now look at Jesus' response in Matthew 16 v 17;
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. .

Exactly as I responded above. Further, the fact that many failed to recognise Jesus from the scriptures does not mean He could not be, as He himself testified - "...these are they which speak of Me". And, it was a testimony of the Gospel truth and of Jesus being whom He claimed to be - now canonised.

OkCornel:
The scriptures are not redundant. It is a written form of the truth. Truth first exists in an unwritten form before it is written. Again, please go and check what I defined as ALL TRUTH. Christendom has mistaken and taken written truth for complete truth. The complete truth can never be documented in a set of books.

Au contraire; the truth of the gospel can be and is. Gods unfolding plan of redemption, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the fullness of Christian living and conduct. That is the truth of the gospel.

Needless taxonomies and boasting in prowess is exactly why God has - glory hallelujah - chosen the lowly, the weak, the despised and the things that are not to bring to nowt the things that think they are. God will make foolish those that prate about intellect, genius and their own supposed prudence.

OkCornel:
Even the acts of Jesus alone, if all were to be recorded...the world will not contain it. Unless you are telling us the unrecorded acts of Jesus are also not part of the TRUTH. .

But we have a sufficiency of the truth for the purpose of the gospel. You that are privy to "ALL TRUTH", or even some of this non-documented truth, please share some of it that in any way changes or otherwise falsifies the gospel.

OkCornel:
Because going through the product without any guidance or understanding from the source will leave you susceptible to confusion and deceit. It's like trying to use a complex gadget without going through the user guide.

No, what will lead you susceptible to confusion and deceit if believing in an open-ended canon, and divine general revelation that is uncapped and from unverified sources - not to mention not universally published.

OkCornel:
I have asked you again, what the general consensus in Christian orthodoxy accept as inspired scriptures;
1. Are they pegged at 66 books? or are they more than 66 books?
2. Why didn't the Jesus and the Apostles at a particular point in time limit the scriptures to a set of books in their lifetime? Knowing fully well the Holy Spirit is still in the business of revealing THE TRUTH to everyone rooted in Him? .

have clearly responded to this. If it is a conundrum, it remains one of your own intellect. The Truth revealed by The Holy Spirit is the glorious light of the marvellous gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ, which is the power of God to salvation.

The work of the Holy Spirit is not to teach everyone all truth about everything. not least because that would take a thousand lifetimes. Nor is the Holy Spirit "leading everyone", nor necessarily illuminating text He did not inspire, whatever claims are made for such writings.

OkCornel:
Perhaps, I'll be more specific to use the word believers... rather than "everyone". Again, refer to 1 John 2 v 26-27. .

Another area where the error is clear. Contrast with John 16 per the bolded, the truth The Holy Spirit illuminates is that of Christ Jesus, He glorifies the Son. Re-read your quoted verse from 24. The anointing and leading are to illuminate and re-enforce what they had heard, not some endless leading into anything that qualifies as true - it was specifically gospel truth.

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

OkCornel:
1. In Acts 6, Nicolas one of the selected deacons who believed in Jesus was appointed and commisioned
2. He was prayed upon by the Spirit-filled Apostles
3. He later on propagated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which taught Christianity can be mixed with participating in Pagan rites.
4. John got a direct revelation from Jesus in the letters written to the churches warning about that. That direct revelation later came to form part of the scriptures as we know it today. But at that point in time, there was no scripture talking specifically against the deed of the Nicolaitans prior to when John got the revelation.

So what, it's canonised now?

OkCornel:
I am sorry, you have not been specific enough on what the scripture is precisely. Is the Bible with 66 books or those with more than 66 books. .

I believe I have been consistently specific and detailed. Now pray tell us exactly how you receive validation of those sent with hot off the press divine general revelation.

OkCornel:
1. Are you trying to tell us ALL TRUTH can be tied down and limited to a set of books?
2. Does it mean the undocumented deeds of Jesus do not form part of the TRUTH as well?
3. Again I ask you, what written truth did Peter rely on to expose Ananias & Sapphira as liars...or to get the revelation that Jesus is the son of God? .

1. All required gospel truth can
2. Are those documented not sufficient for us to grasp and apprehend the fullness of the gospel? Please share some that change the gospel in a material way. Your points lack follow through - assertions without substance. Trite sounding from an over-sabi perspective, but mostly baseless.
3. The Holy Spirit moved to witness the Apostles and at the same time inspire scripture in that era/age. What witness do your modern day Apostles have regards their claims of divine revelation?

OkCornel:
Again, I will repeat this. The Holy Spirit is the source of ALL TRUTH and will guide every believer into ALL TRUTH. Well unless you have mistaken written truth to be complete truth. .

Repeat it as often as you feel led, it changes nothing - which of the deeds of Jesus not documented in the scriptures has been revealed to you? After all, they are true right? But we have enough of His works, signs, and testimonies within what is written.

If you can indeed lay claim to having being led to just one undocumented truth, pray tell how it changes the gospel as it stands. Alternatively, name one truth, that is not in the canon/gospel as historically revealed, by someone you bear witness too that materially changes the gospel as we have it, or changes/falsifies the faith as it has been delivered. If you are able I may find cause to reconsider, otherwise, all I hear is a mish-mash of baseless assertions grounded in - to put it politely "over-thougth" theology.

OkCornel:
Please tell me, how else can one know if one who was truly sent, later veers off into error without checking with the Holy Spirit for witness? Is it through the same scriptures that can be twisted by anyone to suit their narratives?

Either way you look at it, you cannot isolate the Holy Spirit from the verification process. He is the revealer and confirmer of ALL TRUTH.

Anyone can claim office or divine revelation and being sent or led, but the scripture is clear on how to test and verify them. And The Holy Spirit revealed the truth of the scripture as our first reference point


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
I am afraid you are missing the point entirely here. Anyone can claim to have a divine revelation. Your responsibility as a believer is to cross-check with the Spirit of God for veracity or otherwise of such claims. The Spirit of God will lead you into ALL TRUTH (unless you are mistaking written truth for the complete truth)

Firstly the Spirit of God has already inspired scriptural truth as a first point of reference. Secondly, the scriptures contain the fullness of the gospel truth - they are complete. Thirdly, I await your definition of what "ALL TRUTH" encompasses

Fourth, your narrative already seems to lack an internal coherence. If, as you claim, the "Spirit of God" leads you into all truth, what need have you of 3rd parties? Why not hear "ALL TRUTH" direct? Why is there a need for you to hear from others and then go back "to source" to ratify when you are directly connected "to source"?

Fifth, your position effectively falsifies or makes the scriptures redundant. If there is continuing general revelation outside the scripture, which is being revealed by those "sent" even today, then we are working with an incomplete canon. How are the updates published to the body? If indeed there is truth pertaining to salvation, righteousness and worship of God not found in biblical scripture

OkCornel:
That brings me to the question I asked you earlier. What is your understanding of the scripture?
Should the product be focused on at the expense of the source?

I believe I answered this in my previous response. In as much as you utilise the terms product and source, what leads you to believe their is a need for such a distinction?

OkCornel:
When the letter to Timothy was written... are you aware the book of Revelation was not yet in existence...and as such would not have formed part of the ALL SCRIPTURES in 2 Timothy 3 v 16?

I am also further pressed to ask, why didn't Jesus and the Apostles set a limit to the number of books in circulation to be noted as spirit inspired scriptures?

My posers above speak to this. If you do not subscribe to the completeness of the gospel message and the sufficiency of the truth therein for salvation and the fullness of the Christian life, simply say so. That is a huge departure from what would be considered Christian orthodoxy, so much so as to not be considered Christian, but you have a right to your beliefs.

OkCornel:
The main thing is, what is the Spirit of God telling you? Or are you of the opinion the Spirit of God can mislead people?

The Holy Spirit has inspired scripture and has breathed all that is required in the sense I noted immediately above

OkCornel:
Again, what is your definition of the scriptures? 66 books?
Who defined and set a limit to what is the Holy Spirit inspired and canonized scriptures? was it God or some men?

I have pointed you to the fullness of the message - outlined above

OkCornel:
The Holy Spirit that leads everyone into ALL TRUTH is the ultimate.

I not sure the thinking behind this particular statement, but from am orthodox Christian perspective it is riddled with error - to put it politely. The Holy Spirit does not lead "everyone". And the truth the Holy Spirit is concerned with is as I've outlined it above.

OkCornel:
You earlier brought this up "Someone is divinely commissioned, given specific revelation and suddenly veers of course. Yet the One who commissioned such a one will allow them to continue to preach that which is false - wihtout correcting or replacing them - potentially harming individuals and the body as a whole, not to mention causing His holy name to be blasphemed?"

And I brought up Nicolas the deacon and originator of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans as example to answer you in that regard...so how does it not speak to your poser?

Please show how it was someone sent by God with a foundational message or continuing revelation, who veered into error and was outed by individuals going direct to the Holy Spirit to enquire - and not by reference to already revealed scripture.

OkCornel:
First, I need to be clear on what you refer to ask Spirit breathed scriptures...66 books?
Also, saying the Scriptures is the first and foremost standard is tantamount to exalting the product above the source. Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no scriptures in the first place. The ultimate standard remains the Holy Spirit, who is the source and guidance into ALL TRUTH (both written and unwritten)

I have answered what I consider to be scripture. Surely you can see that you are attempting to at once use the scripture to anchor your position, whilst at the same time falsifying what the scripture says about itself?

OkCornel:
And again, you are elevating the product (scriptures) over and above the source ( Holy Spirit) as the ultimate standard. The Holy Spirit remains the ultimate standard that would guide all believers into ALL TRUTH (both written and unwritten). Unless you are implying ALL TRUTH is limited to 66 books.

It is you who is trying to introduce non-Christian notions, such as "written & unwritten" into the Christian orthodoxy. All the gospel truth as it pertains to the gospel, Jesus as the way, the truth and the life and the worship of God in spirit and truth is there.

One of the glaringly odd notions you present is the one of "ALL TRUTH", within which you nest another of "written and unwritten" truths. As I stated you have every right to your beliefs, but they are simply not Christian ones.

OkCornel:
Also, Apostle John's book of revelation was an individual claim of divine revelation so...I guess anyone who lived outside of Bible times but got a divine revelation from the Holy Spirit should be totally discarded right?

Nobody will receive a divine revelation which adds anything - or takes anything away - from the faith already delivered to the saints. Otherwise how do we contend for it, if we cannot tell for sure what it is. Not to mention the clear biblical warnings against attempting to do so.

OkCornel:
Even if both are sent from God, I will rather wait to hear from the Spirit of God before taking a stand. That is my position.

As noted why then are you not simply led into all truth directly? Plus you falsify your own fore-witnessing of both as sent and given divine revelation, if you then have to verify your own witness from the Spirit of God, with the Spirit of God.


Cheers
TV

Morning OKCornel, hope all is well. Firstly to advise I will be offline for large parts of today, more readily present later on and moreso from tomorrow. Let me attempt some response in the little time I have.

OkCornel:
^^^ I'll address your response shortly.

Cheers. Seen, will likewise reply - trying to keep things sequential.

OkCornel:
TV01, what is your understanding of the scriptures?

Scripture is the canon - the faith delivered;

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

OkCornel:
What do you refer to as the Scriptures?

The bible - and apart from a few modern-day translations, I am not too fussed about which one a person or denomination use. Perhaps a better question here would have been what is the essence of the scriptures?

To me that is the marvelous light of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation. As long as it contains that and nothing that compromises that, no real problem.

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

OkCornel:
1 John 2 v 26-27 clearly mentioned the Spirit of God will lead a believer into ALL TRUTH. Can all TRUTH be documented?

Perhaps it would be good to define terms. Your use of the term "ALL TRUTH" appears to me all-encompassing in a way that scripture does not teach. But let me allow you to define that first ahead of commenting further.

Best
TV

Thanks again OKCornel. However, again, I still don't have a sense of my questions being directly addressed. As well as considering divine revelation claims at the level of canon, there is also a suggestion that the written canon is somehow distinct to the Holy Spirit?

2 Timothy 3:16- All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

The Holy Spirit leads us primarily into the truth of the scripture He inspired. It's illumination of the scriptures unto a revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

OkCornel:
As long as it is the Spirit of God leading a man to take decisions, rather than the soul of man leading him to make decisions...there is no cause for concern. Anyone led of the Spirit of God can never be wrong. The passage of time eventually vindicates such a person.

As I stated, individuals can adopt any position they feel led too - however or by whatever led. This does not answer how the body of Christ is supposed to verify and test claims.

There is clear scriptural direction and instruction, as well as structure and order - inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Why would we not expect the Holy Spirit to provide illumination first via the scripture He breathed?

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit

How counter-intuitive is it to say we take all non-canonical revelations and then ask the Holy Spirit if they are true or not and, to do so as individuals, when the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures with clear guidance are with us. Is God the author of confusion or the kind disarray this will surely lead to?

OkCornel:
The answer again is this. The witness of the Spirit of God to your Spirit. Ask Him, and He will lead you to the Truth. In addition, just like the Berean Christians studied the scriptures (a product of the Spirit of God) before accepting the teachings of Paul. Do same, but obviously with the guidance of the Spirit of God, rather than the thoughts and ideologies of your soul.

I believe I have spoken to this repeatedly above

OkCornel:
The bolded is an unfortunate reality. But no genuine believer has an excuse to be misled. It simply means they are listening to the voice of men, rather than the Spirit of God. Before anything from the altar is believed, cross check with the Spirit of God for validation. Again, 1 John 2 v 26-27. If every believer sees the Spirit of God as even more important than the oxygen he or she breathes, the church which has degenerated to a mockery of the version of the church in Acts of Apostles wouldn't have degenerated this bad.

So God sends those He knows will teach error - so how do we know there is no error that has been canonised? Why can we not be told by some that parts of scripture are wrong, outdated or to be overturned, as indeed some do?

Still on the bolded, even the early church had its controversies, where one of the appointed deacons in Acts - Nicolas went on to propagate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Jesus warned strongly against in Revelation 2. Guess what, in Acts 6 v 4-6: the early church chose Nicolas amongst the 7, and the Apostles laid hands and prayed on them (Nicolas inclusive). I have studied the Nicolaitian heresy, however, it does not speak to my posers - and how was the heresy forestalled?

OkCornel:
I don't have an a priori assumption. The Spirit of God is my standard. If I hear nothing, sorry. I maintain a neutral stand.

First, the Spirit breathed scriptures are always the first and foremost standard for the body. Secondly, your stance on this thread has been anything but neutral, which is why I had questions for you, as you have been clear on your position, which is admirable.

OkCornel:
Refer to example of deacon Nicolas and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in the early church.

As noted, I have. I does not teach that heresy is countered by individual recourse to the Holy Spirit

OkCornel:
The Spirit of God is the source, the scriptures are the product. The Spirit of God gives you a clear answer, the scripture (if comprehensive enough) shows you the written truth to validate that. In the absence of the written truth, the passage of time will validate what the Spirit of God told you earlier. The Truth (either written or unwritten) can be witnessed and observed with the passage of time.

I have spoken to this

OkCornel:
As regards the scripture regarding test all Spirits, this is what it says;

1 John 4 v 1-3;

1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Any Spirit that does not confess Jesus came in flesh and blood, and is not from God is a lying spirit. Clearly, the OP and Kenneth Hagin aren't in that category. Unless you think otherwise. I don't know of any other scriptural reference on testing Spirits, would be glad if you could show me.

Then perhaps illumination is required. Contrast that scripture with this;

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

OkCornel:
There are obviously those called by their bellies and selfish interest. Didn't include them in my earlier illustration. The point I was passing across there was that, the Spirit of God remains THE ULTIMATE STANDARD to reveal the Truth to you.

Firstly, the ultimate standard of the Spirit of God remains the scriptures He breathed, not individual claims of divine revelation. Especially for the body as a whole and moreso for matters wholly captured in scripture.

OkCornel:
Again, the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Truth will eventually reveal the Truth to you IF YOU ASK, AND IF YOU ARE STILL (QUIET) IN SPIRIT TO LISTEN TO HIS ANSWER. It could even be possible for both men to be wrong, or have different perspectives on the matter, whilst you have a holistic 360 degree view on the matter after getting revelation from the Spirit of God...thus reconciling seeming contradictions in the first place.

So, two people, who claim divine revelation, who your spirit bears witness to, make contradictory revelatory claims (revelations which you claim are essentially canonical) there is the possibility of error? Error which the Holy Spirit will clear up given time? if the contradictions are attested to by scripture?

Cheers
TV

Thanks for your response. However I don't get a sense that my questions have been addressed.

OkCornel:
TV01, the answers to your questions lies in what the Holy Spirit bears witness to you.

And, I do not have a witness to Mr. Hagin, but that in itself does not faslify his claims. It could be my witness that is faulty/wrong. And whilst it's fine for individuals to take any position they feel "led" to - what of the body as a whole?

Afterall, your position is that his utterances as posted are a direct revelation and near canonical. How as a body do we verify any claims to calling or allegations of divine revelation?

OkCornel:
1) There are those who are truly sent, started well and went astray along the way and started preaching half-truths.

Again, there is some presumption here;

- Someone is divinely commissioned, given specific revelation and suddenly veers of course. Yet the One who commissioned such a one will allow them to continue to preach that which is false - wihtout correcting or replacing them - potentially harming individuals and the body as a whole, not to mention causing His holy name to be blasphemed?

- How in the first instance do we validate any claims to being "sent"? What man sent of God in the NT followed this trajectory?

OkCornel:
2) There are those who are truly sent, started well, and finished well.

Same here, regards my comments above. You have an a priori assumption of them being "sent"

OkCornel:
What's the difference between those two? Choosing to either obey or neglect the Spirit of God.

In a sense, it's a false dichotomy - all are sent, some miss road? Not all are sent. False prophets and the like are not those truly sent who fall into error are they?

OkCornel:
The scriptural pointer I can give you is 1 John 2 v 26-27;
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

There are abundant scriptural pointers that speak to testing, requirements for office and the like that guide the body of Christ as a whole. Is the discernment here to be solely spirit-led? Is there no recourse to scripture?

OkCornel:
TV01, if you are one with the Holy Spirit, you will clearly know within your Spirit between the two as the Spirit of God bears witness to you.

My position regards many of the prominent "MOGs" out there is that they are not sent in the first instance. You present 2 options which both assume an a priori divine calling. What of those that are outright false?

The scripture speaks mostly to falsehood of wolves than the error of sheep. I am sure I am personally in doctrinal error on some points

OkCornel:
You really want to hear my story and why this topic has been of interest to me?

Happy for you to share, but like I said, I wouldn't want this to be about personalities, but about precepts.

I had a sequence of questions I intended to ask, which has all but been derailed at the off. However, let me persevere. You have attested to OP and to Mr. Hagin. What if two people you witness too make contradictory claims?

Cheers
TV

Very insightful thread. As much for the character dynamics as the differing theological positions and doctrinal persuasions. Mostly happy to read and reason. I do have some questions though.

OKCornel, you have been prominent on this thread. I wonder if you would be so kind as to share your thoughts and clarify your position on some issues? No problem if you cannot or do not feel so inclined for any reason.

From your submissions on the thread it appears that you believe that Mr. Hagin was sent by God, heard directly from The Lord and, that the revelation he claimed to receive are to be considered as near canonical.

Could you explain how you determine that 1, he (or anyone who claims to be) was indeed sent and 2, he (or anyone who claims to have) did actually hear from The Lord direct as claimed. Are there any objective criteria, especially scriptural pointers, for determining who, in this age, has an apostolic or prophetic mandate?

OkCornel:
Did Jesus teach Hagin about Demons or not?
Connect the dots and get your answer to where Jesus revealed such. Unless your next line of argument is Jesus never revealed such to Hagin.

By way of disclosure, I personally don't "follow" or even believe Mr. Hagin. Not to say that that necessarily falsifies his claims. More pertinently, I would never guide my own walk with God by what he claims was revealed to him.

However, please note, this is not about Mr. Hagin per se, but more about the underlying principles - I would hope we did not get bogged down in discussing personalities as opposed to precepts.

Cheers
TV

OnPointMan:
Jesus is the mediator between man and God. So, he can't at the same time be God. Shikena!

Au contraire - that is exactly what He needs to be! Can a being less than God, lay hold of God? Whilst being a man makes Him perfectly equipped to understand our passions and intercede on our behalf.

Job 9:33 - Nor is there any mediator between us, Who may lay his hand on us both.

The infinite God presenting in different forms may well be hard to grasp, but it shouldn't be a problem and, we shouldn't even seek to limit Him to what has been revealed. He is not like us, unconstrained by notions of time or dimensionality. He did what we could not do, not limited by form or ego.


TV

Apologise ke? For where??

Not only do I never apologise - mainly as I'm almost never wrong, or can artfully bluff if I am - I never ask command them to do things with a please or, a thank you once done. I'd rather scold them for not executing speedily, perfectly, with all humility etc.

Na so e dey start, from apologising to asking permission. On good days they are treated like the most contemptible of military conscripts. On bad days simply herded like cattle - prod and all.

Nonsense and eye-wateringly high nursery costs

Apologise ko, repent ni. Soon you'll be talking about childrens rights...eh!


TV aka "Daadddeeee wa"

freecocoa:
Okay, I see someone missed me.

Of course na - missed you like kilode? . Along with all the other Family board peeps - as a family man with a strong pastoral inclination, why wouldn't I miss people I genuinely care about? Anyways, make I come chook mouth for your matter? Better run .

TeeVee

Bigbayour:
We got married in 2014, and since then things have not been easy. All what my wife dont do while we were courting are now her usuals.

How do I explain a situation my wife nag of everything? Distespect, shout, talk to me anyhow. How do I explain my wife seen washing my cloth (with a washing machine o) as a favour? We do not have intimate talk again. The only time my wife talk to.me heart to heart is when she want to give me the list of bills. And once that is done...she carry her face again.

The worse part of my travail is that she deprive me of sex. Without exaggeration we sometimes go on 3 months sex break...and anytime she allowed me, it would be like by force and its just once.

I am financially ok, living in my own house in lagos,bought a car for her. I am a Chartered Accountant, currently head of Finance/accounts in my company, and I dont think my physique is not presentable to be a husband.

We have 2 kids and I.love her so much.



Mature advice,please

I said I'd post on the one topic this evening. My initial impulse was to have a good laugh at Freecocoa' matter - but that can wait. Let her humble herself a bit more first. Plus your issue is eminently easier to fix. First i need you to answer the following questions;

1. Does the situation persist? Are you still after advice?
2. Are you legally married, having fulfilled all traditional rites?
3. Do you perform your basic spousal duties of nurturing, providing and protecting your family?

4. Have you ever traumatised your wife by cheating on her, subjecting her to violence or, otherwise causing her harm?
5. Is your wife suffering in any other way, health issues, bereavement, post partum depression etc. - and fairly recent, not long past?
6. Do you have cause to feel your wife may be cheating or have cheated - did she show any such tendency during courtship?

If you answer yes to the first et of 3 questions and no to the second, I'll be happy to drop my 2 shekels - otherwise I'm off to Freecocoa' thread - for some merriment


TV

Regards
TV

LordReed:
Here, someone who can example this better:

ATTN: TV01

With the knowledge we have today, Darwinian evolution is a bankrupt notion, a busted flush. And the more we learn the more untenable it becomes. It lives on only as tenaciously defended dogma, not as cutting edge science and not as empirical fact.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Peace
TV

LordReed:
LoL speedy Gonzalez running faster than his shadow, answering questions that were not asked.

I am sorry I am not a magician and cannot give you a magic show.

No one requested a magic show, just a clear cut explanation to a very basic question. All you had to offer was diversions about taxonomy, ruses about misshapen creatures, conflations and bare-faced avoidance .

No worries, I sincerely enjoy watching you pass sideways as opposed to a forward dribbler like me.


TV

Ogbeni, you are a one sha . Since morning, you've refused to explain, demonstrate or otherwise evidence the process whereby organisms acquire novel genetic information which, over time leads to wholesale changes in morphology such that, they can become genetically different creatures. Yet you describe me as a dribbler

LordReed:
How about you properly answer my previous question, does adaptation affect genetic information?

To which I responded and shall respond again in a different manner;

1. Adaptation does not affect genetic code in such a way as to introduce new information
2. The extant genetic information is what dictates the limits of adaptation

LordReed:
How about you answer the question instead of attempting to dribble your shadow once again. Question again: So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

And again. Yes it will be the same - with different expressions of the original genetic content. The same organism.

Are a snow-white blond woman from northern Europe and a pitch black brother form the Sahel different creatures - other than sex? Just because they have been raised apart over hundreds of generations. Will their union (apart form the usual possible defects) not be fertile.

Keep believing - without an iota of proof, or being able to empirically demonstrate - that adaptation leads to different creatures if extended out over eons. Keep deploying the "adaptation is evolution therefore macro-evolution is a fact" ruse-cum-switch & bait. E caaan done! God did it

No hatin' now


TV

LordReed:
LoL you gotcha yersef. The drivers are exactly the same, it is you who persists in mislabeling things just so you can come back and say gotcha. Yes, adaptation is driven by mutation but here comes the kicker it's you who persists in calling it random mutation. Those of us who understand the theory know it is derived by natural pressures.

So, adaptation is driven by mutation is your claim. My question is, does this "non-random", naturally driven mutation create novel genetic information, or merely drive different expressions of extant genetic content?

LordReed:
Where did we say the process is different? It is exactly the same, compounded by extremely long times. It's not a magic show.

Please respond to my question above. You have consistently avoided answering any direct questions.

LordReed:
So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

Any difference or change would be within the extent of the information contained in that 1st generation. And, it certainly wouldn't be, or leading to, the kind of changes in morphology that would indicate new genetic information had been acquired or, it had become a different creature altogether.

LordReed:
Yes, good at dribbling your own shadow.

Don't hate


TV

^{...my day is made, unbelievers consoling themselves with the scriptures .}

LordReed:
And it has been explained to you again and again that the changes in morphology are a compounding of genetic changes over time, possibly millions if not billions of years. It is not any one genetic change that signals the change in morphology but you want us to give a magic show where lizards acquire wings and feathers over night. Those little genetic changes are the result of mutation but all you think about mutation is it produces misshapen monsters.

And your remit sir - if indeed you/your TOE are able - is to explain the process, whereby over millions or billions of years, random mutations (which for some reason you called genetic changes, as if somehow they are structured & ordered) somehow coalesce into clearly ordered genetic information over time.

Such a concept may well hold ones imagination for a moment, but even the briefest scrutiny of the requirements for this to happen and the problems arising, will reveal it' as a non-starter. Sans faith that is

What mutations have been shown to produce is flawed output - given the scale and time period - which not only suggests that misshapen monsters are unlikely (other than dead on arrival), but that beautifully structured creatures are an impossibility with mutation as the driver.


TV

LordReed:
This is exactly why misinformation needs to be nipped in the bud. Micro and macro evolution are terms co-opted by creationist types to say "hey you see, evolution is a lie!". The only difference between the 2 is time scales. It's like saying the process that creates a canyon is not the same process of erosion that creates a gully.

So tell me does adaptation affect genetic information?

You are now asking questions

If there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution or, this is only one that is made by creationists, pray tell, why are the drivers not identical? I believe I already asked this question - is it mutation that drives adaptation? Random mutation at that - Gotcha! .

So, actually, it is evolutionists who claim (macro) evolution is a thing, then point to adaptation (micro-evolution) as proof. However, the processes which drive the one are different to those claimed for the other - unravelling before your very eyes.

The process that builds a molehill is different form that which creates a mountain - oya, start climbing

And to your question - see integrity pimpin - if adaptation does affect genetic information, it does not create new content . Or does it?

Daaaayuuuuum. I'm good.



TV

LordReed:
And it has been explained to you again and again that the changes in morphology are a compounding of genetic changes over time, possibly millions if not billions of years. It is not any one genetic change that signals the change in morphology but you want us to give a magic show where lizards acquire wings and feathers over night. Those little genetic changes are the result of mutation but all you think about mutation is it produces misshapen monsters.

Understood. Now please explain the process whereby random mutations coalesce to produce coherent new genetic information - over any period of time. Simples .

Evolutionists often claim that evolution is real, that it is in fact happening as we speak. We are then told of the distinction between micro and macro-evolution, along with the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the micro is a precursor for macro.

Now, so called micro-evolution, better termed adaptation or even speciation, always happens within the limits of the extant genetic code. So tell us, are mutation the driver for adaptation in the same way they are for macro-evolution?

It sounds like to different processes are being described here, although they claim is that they are in essence one



Cheers
TV

LordReed:
I don't know how many times you'll be told that this not a magical change of a frog to a lizard or lizard to bird. You will persist in thinking this is magic because you've conditioned your mind to think in those terms.

I wasn't particularly interested in changing your mind only in showing you that you refuse to accurately represent what the theory says, mixing instead with your notions of magic and producing this corrupted information as reason why you will not budge.

All I asked was for you to explain the process whereby new genetic information is acquired which leads to changes in morphology. The emphasis being on new and coherent.

Your insistent on glibly putting it down to "random mutation", which is in effect to say "typos did it", is quite simply clutching Then following this with an attempt to ram it home with the nonsensical point which I quoted towards the end of my previous post clearly demonstrates you are the one resorting to sleight of hand magic tricks.

As I said, I'm a biblical inerrantist - I believe it all from the first character to the last. That in no way prevents you from clearly and honestly articulating your position - if you indeed have one of any merit.

Instead you've diverted down secondary paths, ascribed all sorts of nonsense to me and duly exposed your own limited understanding of what you in truth believe really as a matter of faith. Be it immediate, or over millions, billions or trillions of years, there has to be a natural process.

Any ideas


TV

LordReed:
You've been shown over and over again but you say you've not seen anything. There is no need, I am not masochistic.

I quite enjoy joshing with you. Although as a biblical inerrantist, I am unlikely to budge even a smidgen towards your position, as I suppose, may also be the case from your POV. That however does not prevent clearly articulated points being made - and honestly.

Honestly I say, as I've always considered you above board, and unlike some, not hell bent on demonstrating how well their intellect matches up to divinity. But now I'm not so sure.

Are you really going to present a case which claims combinational changes in the DNA bases can lead to wholesale coding for new morphology. Simply ignoring the more granular process coding for the assembly of functional proteins from amino acids?

Skipping any insight into the regulatory framework around gene activity and expression or, the tightly controlled process of transcription and translation - which process also possesses inbuilt functionality to prevent and/or rectify copying errors.

Dude, I have no problem being thoroughly sledged, or described as ignorant - even by unwanted suitors - but that kind of behaviour is unbecoming.

LordReed:
Very simply, the number of molecules that make up DNA are finite, their combinations will also be finite. The random process works within the constraints of physical laws, they will produce coherence because any time there is a new combination there is a non-zero chance that coherence will emerge. The same way every time you flip a coin there is a non-zero chance that it will be heads.

A true religionist

Thanks anyway. Not even a pinch of a tad of a smidgen


TV

LordReed:
Very simply, the number of molecules that make up DNA are finite, their combinations will also be finite.

The random process works within the constraints of physical laws, they will produce coherence because any time there is a new combination there is a non-zero chance that coherence will emerge. The same way every time you flip a coin there is a non-zero chance that it will be heads.



At this point I will say you have decided you will be willngfully ignorant. No need to belabour the point with you any further.

As in, I can't answer the question and anything I am able to posit cannot be evidenced, demonstrated or otherwise observed, therefore I am throwing in the towel. I knew you'd look for the out. Enjoy the sport jawe, Fed vs. Nadal, what's not too like?


Cheers
TV


^{...and yes, the earth is flat and unmoving. If you can show me any evidence of the earth moving - on an axis, or around the sun. I'd love to see it...}

kkins25:
this guy self, an increase in genetic information does not always imply that the organism is going to acquire a new trait. now you are going to make me repeat myself; mutation like lordreed has already told you over and over again, so also as budaatum but it seems your skull is thicker than titanium- does not only mean a change in sequence(which i believe you think is only deleterious) but also involves addition of dna sequence in processes known as insertion,duplication,deletion,inversion and translocation.

Please leave my beautifully created skull out of this . Not sure what your point is here, you appear to be warring with your own belief in macro-evolution. The kind of morphological changes evolution claims require an increase in novel and coherent information.

To acquire new morphology, new information needs to be acquired. How does that happen? For a fish to evolve into an amphibian, or something that is not an ape into a number of different types of ape. How can ?

kkins25:
An organism can acquire new genetic information by
1) losing genetic information, : you might wonder how does a loss of gene result in a gain in genetic information? but a simple deletion in a gene codec would most times result in noticeable phenotypic expressions.

2) substitution of genetic information: on nairaland, to bold a text you have to use the "{b}" tag for example, i have used the tag for this text. [b if i miss out an element of the bold tag like the "]" then the text does not appear bold[/b] this is how DNA works. when a gene is missing, duplicated or altered we get a different result.

3) duplication of genetic information: duplication of information can lead to advantageous consequences as we frequently see in plants but deleterious as we see in animals. klinefelter syndrome is an example in humans.

So it's deleted or deleterious then And, non of the above demonstrates the capacity to give rise to wholesale morphological changes. Oga, you are struggling

kkins25:
4) mechanical insertion by another another organism(naturally by viruses and bacteria, and artificially by humans via gene editing); yeah, virus are fond of installing their own dna into the hosts'.

Please, I love comic too. X-men na die, Spidey is baaaad-ass, but I am able to distinguish what reality is, what nature is able. Don't go all Marvel on me now. Abi TOE na comic fantasy

kkins25:
Now imagine if guys with six toes and fingers were the ones girls were tripping for, probably because they appeared more sexy or they made more money or for some reason. As time goes on the children with six toes and fingers would increase. before you know it, these children would start marrying themselves and boooom! we have an explosion of six digit individuals. since every body wants to marry a six digit female or male, the five digit female and males would be less desired by the society. consequently fading out(over a long period of time of course].

this is an example of random evolution triggered by spontaneous genetic shuffling.

Please sir, are human beings with six digits no longer humans? Or, on their way to becoming an altogether different creature . Bro' no wound me jor

kkins25:
humans are the most complex of species, but that those not mean we have a higher number of genes. a Dog has 36 chromosomes, plants can have 100s. so acquisition of "new DNA" isn't a prerequisite for evolution but rather a change or modification of already exist DNA

How does DNA that codes for a limb evolve to code for a wing What will happen is impairment, loss of function, likely death and removal form the gene pool. Moreso, as mutation, changes and the like are akin to typos, which the genome is intelligent enough to try and correct.

kkins25:
yes humans have a higher number of chromosomes than micro organisms, meaning that humans have acquired new genes. yes, in this case budaatum has already explained this mechanism. let me find that post for you for the very last time.

Prof please, just answer the question or otherwise demonstrate/evidence how this modification of existing DNA can over time lead to wholesale morphological changes.

Ah, ah Broda Prof!


TV

LordReed:
Sure mere scrambling will not get you to coherence but when there is only a limited number of ways in which the letters can be arranged then every time it is scrambled there exists a non-zero possibility that it will achieve coherence.

If indeed there is "a limited number of ways". But that is not the case, unless of course you are able to show otherwise.

And why should\how can a supposedly random & blind process ever achieve coherence?

LordReed:
Why do you persist with this same definition of mutation when I have shown you that mutation is not always degenerative? Look at that picture again, is it only loss that is depicted there?

There is always a loss of information. Mutation not being always degenerative is disputable. I won't do that at this point, suffice to say, mutation does not give rise to novel coherent information which would code for new morphology.

LordReed:
This does not help. How do we know what kind of creatures fit into a kind? What parameters are used to determine a kind and the creatures that would fit into it? If you can't explain what a kind is can you at least provide a resource that does?

First, and, as I have stated before, taxonomy is not at the heart of this discussion. Secondly, I'm no expert, but please peruse Bbaraminology to read what those who have pursued this line of inquiry further have to say.

Mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and the like only act on pre-existing information. They do not write wholesale new coherent detail that leads to wholesale changes in morphology.

And, any postulation to that effect has never been observed, has not been evidenced and cannot be shown experimentally. TOE is speculation at best.


TV

LordReed:
When you scramble cat to get act are you still describing the same thing with the 2 words?

If the letters c, a & t are characters in a communicable code, language or communication lexicon, then no - unless of course the characters somehow happen represent the exact same thing, unlikely I'm sure all will agree. Having said that, a mere scrambling does not mean that the letters remain coherent or legible.

And, mutation is not a scrambling, it's a degredation of the code. Mutation cannot drive the acquisition of novel code. Along with natural selection, it only acts on existing code. It is almost always deleterious or at best neutral. Even where the effects of mutation may be deemed to afford some advantage, it still comes with a loss of code.

LordReed:
Meanwhile when are you going to tell me what a kind means.

That was always a side-issue, if not a footnote, to impress that the commonly used taxonomy for classifying living things is not the only one that can be applied and, even with that, there are always grey areas and points of contention.

But I'll attempt to shed some light. All the elephantine type creatures would have been a kind - including the currently extant Indian and African elephants and any extinct ones, such as the woolly mammoth. Hope that helps.

Now, back to the question



Cheers
TV

LordReed:
This picture is in the linked article and they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg/388px-Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg.png

How does this answer the question about how organisms acquire novel and coherent genetic information that codes for changes in morphology?

You really don't have any answers do you


Cheers
TV

kkins25:
acquire new genetic information the reason you keep asking questions like this is because you do not know evolution as much as you think. or you've read some information- obviously christian biased- debunking the concept of evolution.

I agree and I confess - to both charges

kkins25:
all sensible biblical scholars or fundamentalist have all agreed that evolution is taking place at least within species.

"Evolution" as in adaptation sure. As in macro-evolution - i.e. creatures undergoing wholesale changes in morphology over time? No sir. And I ain't no scholar

kkins25:
not quite my friend.
INFORMATION is processed data. your question correctly asked should substitute information with data. when MUTATION occurs there is change in data hence change in information. in the sense that you asked your question, no, no new information. rather data is processed into another information.
Semantics. I could as well use the word code.

[quote author=kkins25 post=79906291]you probably know that the DNA comprises of four nuclueotide namely ATCG. lets say each of this letters represents a colour.
A- RED
T-BLUE
C-GREEN
G-PURPLE.

if you mix RED and BLUE you get a color,

if you mix RED,BLUE, and GREEN, you should also get a colour. when it comes to colours the intensity and the quantity is very important. any slight change in the quantity of RED you apply to the mixture would result in variations of the product which would vary in contrast of the colour or even produce a different colour entirely. eg lets say to get colour yellow you must sum
50ml RED+ 60ml GREEN.
if you reduce the quantity of RED to 45ml you might get "light yellow", if you increase the quantity of green , you would also get a colour that is closer to the GREEN spectrum. and so on and so forth.

Danke! Thank you for the lesson - if only you'd answer the simpl,e question repeatedly asked - abi na data ?

kkins25:
The same thing happens with genes. The mutation of just a single segment of gene might lead to a life time of unending pain or a life time of unparalleled splendor.

Ah, ah! See claim Are you able to provide examples of the bolded?

kkins25:
we know for a fact that genes do play a role in shaping behaviour of organisms. the mecahnism is not understood that much as of now. some people are born with uncontrollable anger which in a normal civilized society is hazadarous. on the other hand some people like myself are born with remarkable calmness that its almost like they feel no anger. in todays society people like me would go a very long way when it comes to socialism compared to the person with anger issues.

a person with anger issues may have for example 32000 base pairs coding for that character, lets do this to represent ATTCGATT
You would think that because a calm person is more equipped to survive todays world would have more information than the angry man but no.
the dna of the calm guy may hold the exact same number of nucleotide- 32000. but the difference would be AATCGATC

the moslty deleterious ones eventually fade off. but the lucky folks like yourself and i still wake up each morning to listen to silly nigerian politics.

mutation doesnt work like that. no oga sir. but it is the fundamental basis of evolution. mutation, speciation, migration,

my people perish for lack of knowlede. check these

How?

kkins25:
i think budaatum recently shared a link with some images illustrating how an organism divergies from its ancestral linage. buda kindly refer tv01 to that post of yours please.

I'm not after a picture book, just an answer to the repeatedly asked question please. That divergence eventually - as claimed - leads to totally different creatures with unique DNA. What is the natural process behind these pretty pictures .

kkins25:
besides how do you want us to prove something no scientist in his lifetime or a thousand generation can observe. evolution takes years, millions of it.

So, it's not observable, but fact, it's not empirical but science, you can't prove it but it's true - yet, I'm the religious extremist .


TV

LordReed:
You have a limited understanding of what is considered mutation.

Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

I agree - in fact, absolutely. Indeed if you knew the extent of my limitations eh. Especially were those who don grasp omnipotence dey

All I ask is that you kind sir - or anyone who so cares - explains to me how mutation, even in conjunction with genetic drift, natural selection etc., give rise to the new genetic information that enables creatures to undergo the morphological changes that evolution claims.

Please don't drag me into the deep waters of "mutation" in order to drown me, or attempt strangulation by entangling me in semantics. A simple answer for a simpleton as it were .

From the link you most kindly posted;

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[8] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.[5]

I don suffer - see the kind kickin' I dey take here

TV

LordReed:
You repeatedly said you don't want the mechanism to be mutation and in response to your gripe with mutation I asked you what does mutation do to genetic information.

Cheers.

If you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that proves mutation is the natural mechanism whereby organism acquire new genetic information then fine. I have only asked for a description and evidence of the process.

Having said that, what we know about mutation in no way suggests that it would enable an organism to acquire new genetic information;

1. Mutation is always on pre-existing information - it does not in it's own right create information or introduce new traits
2. It is almost always deleterious
3. It does not change or act as a pre-cursor for a creature to change into something else - the creatures always remain the same

I have no gripe with mutation, any gripe would be with those who try and pass it off as something it has not been shown to be and, doing something it has not been demonstrated it is able.

Can a simple response to the original question please be provided.


Danke
TV

Holá,

Common descent is a central plank of TOE. It is clear that individual creatures replicate according to the information/data in their genome. It is also clear that all creatures have a unique genome.

The question, which so far no one has responded to, is how is the code which drives the changes in morphology acquired? What is the natural mechanism or process behind it?

If apes and humans had a common ancestor, what natural process drove the changes in the original creature's genome, thereby gaving rise to a range of creatures with different genomes - i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, humans


Cheers
TV

^{BTW, I had already watched the first video - not too long ago actually. It's a load of assertions and "evidence" claimed to support evolution, at one point he claimed a billion times more evidence. But nothing to answer the question I asked.}

LordReed:
Yet you keep saying you understand the theory. What kind of creature changed into another according to the theory? How is "we have a common ancestor" equal to one kind changing to another kind? Because I am sure you are using your version of kind which the theory does not use.

Speciation is branches of a larger family becoming more specialised in their ecological niche. Polar bears are not found anywhere else than the arctic circle because they have become specialised to their environment, yet they are still bears.



What is adaptation?



So what does mutation do to genetic information?

EDIT: Watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YwBwIK_no


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvpQ5Lyah50

And this one by a bible believing christian


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaeGfV-N2kM

LordReed:
Is there any further need to engage with you if you are just going to wilfully misrepresent the theory?

...sounds like your cue to tap out - no problem, you have form . Read the very first page of this thread. A creature that wasn't a human being or an ape, over time "evolved" into both.

Common ancestry, is a fundamental plank of the neo/Darwinian theory of evolution. So, if a common ancestor "evolved" into the various classes of ape, it would need to acquire new genetic content to do so. To express the change in morphology.

By what natural process does this occur? Has it been observed or otherwise demonstrated by experiment. And we are not talking about adaptation here - which no one disputes.

LordReed:
No where does the theory say organisms turn into different lifeforms.

That's exactly what it claims from one kind of a creature to another. Via random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection etc. But this has never been observed, or demonstrated, so it's not hypothesis or theory, and it is certainly not science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

LordReed:
It has been explain over and over again that the cumulative genetic shifts are what produce a new species and over time those become more and more specialised. But you'll just go on to "show me a monkey turning into a human being".

Please detail how these "cumulative genetic shifts" act as a mechanism for creatures to capture new genetic information that enables them to express wholesale changes to morphology, such that a creature that is not an ape, or a proto-ape, is able to "evolve" into the various types of apes including humans - I repeat not adaptation

LordReed:
Describe to you mutation which you say is not the natural process? No, I am not masochistic.

Semantics, scientism and now slight of hand. The trajectory is clear . I never claimed mutation is not a natural process. What I said is that mutation has not been shown to be the mechanism whereby creatures acquire the new information for wholesale morphological changes (it simply does not have the creative power to do so, being almost totally negative or neutral).

Changes within species are always within the limits of the genome. The kind of wholesale morphological changes evolution postulates requires a mechanism whereby new genetic code can be captured. Could the hearty proclaimers of TOE kindly advise what this is .


TV