₦airaland Forum

Knight1:
Abuzola, how old are you? And have you had any formal education?

What do you mean by 'formal education'? The guy is a graduate in 'arabic studies' - and according to Islam, the Arabs are "the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which God hath sent down to His Apostle" (Quran 9:97 . . even verse 101 says that the Medina folks are "obstinate in hypocrisy".

What Abuzo-lala is doing here is displaying how much of a graduate he is from 'arabic studies', a discipline for those who are obstinate in hypocrisy, unbelief and ignorance. And why does he appear to be miffed at anything pointing to Christianity? Well, it is the same Quran that says that Christians are "men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Quran 5:82, Yusuf Ali translation).

So next time you imagine our friend Abuzo-lala displaying any sort of 'formal education', just laugh at his ignorance, unbelief and hypocrisy - these are hallmarks of what he graduate from!




Abuzo-lala. . howdy? What's the latest?

^^^ Yes, you came quite well across; but no, I don't take such a simplistic view of man as you put across.

The fact is that man is a tripartite being - that is, he is both spirit and soul and body (1 Thes. 5:23). But when looking at creation, there's no basis to assume that the 'real man' is merely soul. The Bible declares that man became a soul (Gen. 2:7) - but before he 'became' that soul, he was already called 'MAN'.

What is to be understood by 'man became a living soul'?

The question is simple enough to answer: for the 'soul' as used in the creation narratives points to the animating principle in living beings - both man and animals. Two verses compared together would bring this out plainly:

[list]ANIMALS: Genesis 1:21 ~
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

MAN: Genesis 2:7 ~
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[/list]

There is no difference in the highlighted clauses in the Hebrew of those verses, for they are both the same thing: 'living creature' and 'living soul' = 'נפשׁ החיה' (chay nephesh).

Man is as much a 'living creature' as are the animals. Genesis 1:24 says: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind', and although that verse refers to the creation of land animals, yet the clause 'living creature' is the very same for 'living soul' ('נפשׁ החיה') for man in Gen. 2:7.

The difference is that Gen. 2:7 says that God breathed 'the breath of life' into the nostrils of man, while we are not told the same about animals in the previous chapter. Yet, in describing the animals in Genesis 7:15, they are called 'all flesh, wherein is the breath of life'.

Nonetheless, speaking particularly about man, not only is he described as a tripartite being, but also is said to have an 'outward man' (2 Cor. 4:16), an 'inner man' (Eph. 3:16), and an 'inward man' (Rom. 7:22). These could be said to be descriptive terms for understanding the psychological constituents of man, with the 'outward man' corresponding to what you called the 'physical body'. Yet, in all of this, before man "became" a living soul, the verse in Genesis says that MAN was formed from the dust of the ground.

This very point is often ignored by many of us who rush to the animating principle - the psyché of man commonly referred to as the soul. My replies to noetic were not that life came from the dust; but rather, that we should not ignore the very sequence that is given in Genesis. To ignore the sequence is one of the reasons why materialists would argue for 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis, which is not what Genesis was describing at all. I do hope you understand my perspective.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

couldyou pleaseadduce any reason why Rapheal and John used the number seven in their statements when they know they are millions of angels who stand before God

1.  Like I set forth for John in Revelation, he clearly made the point that there are numerous angels who stand in God's presence - Revelation 5:11 and 7:11 bear this point out.

2.  Then again he made mention that there are SERIES of 'seven angels' who stand before God for special assignments - that point was also set forth in my post, #56: 'Seven Angels In God's Presence', where Revelation 8:2 and 15:1 were discussed. Clearly, these two series of seven angels (mark: 'angels', not 'spirits' or 'archangels') are not to be confused as if they were the same angels.

3.  The reason why (2) above shows the distinctions between those series is simple: each series have a specific number; and according to their number and series, so is their special assignments. This is why you will find that apart from various 'seven angels' in God's presence, you will also find again that there are 'FOUR spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth' (Zechariah 6:5).

4.  Looking back at John, he never claimed anywhere that 'there are only seven' angels/archangels who stand in God's presence - it is our various church traditions (whether Protestant or Catholic) that is forcing that interpretation into those texts. Simply, the same John was given visions showing SERIES of 'sevens' - and there are clearly no less than four specific groups/series of 'seven angels' identified for various assignments in the book of Revelation alone (if you also check with Zechariah 6:5).

5.  The plausible reason why John and Raphael might have used the number 'seven' is not because that is what they personally chose, but rather what was revealed to them - a series of 'sevens'. As we have noted in many places, this number 'seven' is symbolic of completeness, perfection, extension, concentration,  or assemblage.

6.  In Raphael's case, we have seen that he never claimed that 'there are only seven who stand before the presence of God' - that was the reason I asked you to check up on 'chariots' and 'cherubim'. If we force Raphael to say what he did not say by claiming 'only seven' on his behalf, then we would be making that same Raphael a most despicable liar. If, however, that is not what he claimed, there is no reason to force the idea of 'only seven' into his statement.

7.  Now that I have offered answers, I would like you to tell me plainly: why did Daniel plainly say that "ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him" (Daniel 7:10)?

noetic16:
Since the bible asserts that man should be fruitful and multiply. . .what exactly stops man from doing so? has man not been reproducing since God knows when?. . .

Like I said, reproduction does not explain existence or the ORIGIN of life. Rather, it is creation you should be looking at. Man cannot reproduce anything if he had not been first 'created'; and reproduction only appears later in the picture after the question of creation has been settled. How do you even read your own Bible? Check the facts:

(a) God first said 'Let us make man' (Gen. 1:26) before He said next 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth' (Gen. 1:28).

But the way it seems you're arguing is to place verse 28 before verse 26 and 27! Your 'reproduction' argument comes late into the picture AFTER the question of creation has been settled.

why do u then want to excuse biblical assertions on the basis of dogmas?

Whose dogma - yours? hehe. Please get a good grasp of the meaning of the words you use in your arguments, otherwise you'll be doing far more damage to your ideology than is necessary.

I would become a learned and better person if and when incontrovertible anomalies are established in my world view and understanding. I am a student of knowledge. . . . .but until then, my knowledge, faith and beliefs remain as they are.

Let me just say that you are only struggling to believe what you have chosen to believe - not because you are persuaded anything can add to your understanding. Please do me this fav: go back and check carefully what is meant by 'anomalies' then I shall share a few stuff with you accordingly. It does not mean therefore that 'anomalies' discredit God and His creation; infact, the Bible does not deny such even though it does not dwell so much on them.

please read that verse again. . . . . .while man was created from dust. . .he did NOT become a LIVING being until he received the BREADTH of LIFE. how then can we disassociate man from the life he carries?

Again, for the umpteenth time: "It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7." What you are doing here is ignore the fact of the non-living matter and put all your arguments on the end of the verse! That is simply saying that you cannot be objective enough to make simple inferences from anything presented before you. Ha-ha!!

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Please sir: look again at that verse and see what the Bible is saying - see the outline:

        (a) man was formed from non-living matter:
             'God formed man of the dust of the ground'

        (b) non-living matter received life:
             God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'

        (c) man became what he previously was not: soul -
             'and man became a living soul'

The fact that man was created from non-living matter ('dust') is affirmed in so many verses of the Bible:

       Gen. 3:19  -
      'for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return'

       Job 4:19  -
      'How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay,
       whose foundation is in the dust, . . .'

       Job 33:6 -
       '. .I also am formed out of the clay.'

These and more show that man was formed from non-living matter and that is incontrovertible, deny it all you want! As delineated above, it was after man had been formed from the dust of the ground that he became what he previously was not - he became a living soul!

All these do not mean the same as 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis. And as far as we can see, the verses we are considering in Genesis point to the work of God in having created man from non-living matter: dust of the ground. The difference here is that abiogenesis as a theory attempted to explain the origin of life from non-lving matter all by itself without any intelligent Being - and we know the results: a failure.

@noetic,

noetic16:
1. would it be out of place to dismiss your innuendos considering that u have completely ignored the major point made in that post which largely reflects on REPRODUCTION. The ability of man to reproduce after his own kind? this is NOT an assertion but a scientific notion buttressed by the ability of u viaro to exist today . . . .

Thanks for replying. And yes, it is out of place to dismiss my reply as innuendos as I did not ignore anything in yours. You would notice that I did not argue against reproduction at anytime, but was concerned that you were using an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' for your postulation - which is not the way science works at all.

what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?

Reproduction does not explain 'existence' in terms of the ORIGIN of life, unless you're quickly forgetting that 'origin of life' is the thrust of this thread. I would rather say that creation explains my existence, and that is the underlying factor for all talk about existence before you can even begin to mention 'reproduction'. Reproduction comes from what is created, and creation explains existence.

objectivity is a vague word and concept. . .but within the subject of discourse, your attempt to reconcile the hindu belief of a "cow God" to the inherent evidence in human reproduction is appalling.

Objectivity is not vague; and I never made any attempt to make such reconciliations as you suggested. My statement is crystal clear and pointed out that an 'assertion' in itself is not 'empirical evidence' in science; and if you want to maintain an assertion as 'empirical', then there is nothing stopping any other religion from making assertions and declaring them to be scientifically valid as 'empirical evidence'. If you maintain the fallacy of 'asssertion = empirical evidence', then the Hindu example of 'cows are God' is an assertion and cannot be dismissed by you; otherwise you would be applying a double standard and playing the tartuffe.

what would be the basis of asserting a scientific basis to a belief that a cow is a god?

Precisely my point, noetic. There is no scientific foundation for validating such an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' in just the same way as arguing that an 'assertion' in the Bible by itself is 'empirical'. Please try and find out the meaning of the term 'empirical' before you try to use it any further.

by God, we refer to the creator of all things, would a reproduced cow, who is unable to decipher a thought on its own, be the creator of his farmer? I dont think so.

Excuse me, noetic - I'm not one who disparages the religions of other people, especially because I do not know what precisely they might mean. Our own Bible says that our God had 'horns coming out of his hand' (Hab. 3:4) - and any careless reader could take that statement as literal as you want to take the Hindu quote. If you believe Hab. 3:4 is true, what is your scientific basis to qualify that as 'empirical evidence'? I'm not trying to defend Hinduism, but you cannot just take a small quote from other people's writs and trail off ignorantly to condemn them by your own hermeneutics.

Lets be objective like u said. . . . .assertions can be assesed based on scientific notions. That some scientists claim that human life comes from dust is just a baseless assertion. .  .when placed under the microscopic analysis of independent scientific thoughts it becomes even more ridiculous to assert that organisms came into being from inorganic substances.

I think you're getting it all mixed up. It is not the statement in itself that settles the matter; but the meaning of that statement (whatever statements) that should be our main concern. There's plenty of verses in the Bible to show that man was made from inorganic substances - 'the dust of the ground' - does that sound ridiculous to you as well? If yes, then you're plainly shooting yourself in the leg and don't even have a grasp of what you're arguing.

why then can we not put biblical claims under such scientific scrutiny? if we can put the claims of men under microscopic analysis. . .why not biblical claims?

That is what I am asking you to do before making a huge assertion plastered with 'empirical evidence', unless you also don't know what 'empirical' means and just go by the nice sound of the word.

@chukwudi44,

I regret not having posted the other part of my thoughts on the divine title 'the seven Spirits of God'; but that will come in due course.

However, it seems to me that the weight of your arguments for archangels is a question of their standing in God's presence:

chukwudi44:
Where the other angels in heaven stay is where I don't know but what was reported is that there are only seven who stand before the presence of God.

You keep making this false statement which has been soundly addressed - and that was why I took time yesterday to post a detailed outline to show your argument is plainly false. Please go back and re-read my post in #57: 'How Many Angels In God's Presence?'.

The same Daniel where Michael and Gabriel are mentioned tells us plainly that there are THOUSANDS of angels who stand in God's presence - "thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him" (Daniel 7:10). This just shows your argument that 'there are only seven who stand before the presence of God' is plainly false. Selective reading is perhaps the reason why you are ignoring that verse in Daniel and rushing to Tobit 12:15.

Raphael never claimed that only archangels are in God's presence; nor did he claim that there are only seven angels in God's presence. If that was what he was claiming, he was quite plainly lying as far as all other Biblical prophets are concerned. Since he never made the claim you're forcing upon him in Tobit 12:15, it were better that you just stop making these false assertions.

It is only The angel Rapheal orJohn,whom you have to tackle as my responsibility is to beleive what I find in the scriptures.

Raphael is not the 'only' source about angels in scripture; and John has well made clear that there are more than seven angels in God's presence. In Revelation 5:11, John plainly said that he heard 'the voice of many angels round about the throne' and goes on to mention the number of these angels - 'the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands'.

Please tell me - did John not say where these angels are? Incase you missed it: he said these multitude of angels were 'ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE' - they were in the very presence of God! How many again? John said - 'many angels round about the throne' with an emphatic number: - 'the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands'. What could be plainer than that?

Again the same John wrote in Revelation 7:11 - 'And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God'. Please note: John did not say that 'only seven angels' stood before the throne of God; and the very mention of the 'throne' should make us understand that God was there - "Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne" (Revelation 7:10).

Consider these references - and you will see that the Biblical prophets clearly state that there are numerous angels who stand in God's presence: "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Daniel 7:10).

noetic16:

I'm afraid that's not an empirical evidence in the least. I won't go into that presently, but maybe we shall have ocassion to think carefully through and see that an assertion of such does not actually establish empirical foundations for evidence of a scientific nature. One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

1. says who? you? and your reason is?

Actually, my reason is derived from your own statements:

       1.  based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from
        the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and
        multiply and replenish the earth.

        2.  simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind.

Statements based merely on 'assertions' are not 'empirical' of a scientific nature. If that is the way to argue veracity for empirical evidence, then every religion in the world would have a 100% equal validity for whatever assertions they make - including the Hindu writs that say that 'cows are God', and you would have no justification whatsoever to falsify their assertions and claim that yours is 'correctly' more empirical and evidence-based.

. .I hope u dont come up with a world view that has no basis. . . .I would be too disappointed.

No, I'm not trying to bring up a baseless worldview. I believe that as Christians, we should be very objective and avoid mixing things up.

2. I refuse to take into account your presupposition of an anomaly in the context of this assertion cos there is no basis for such.

What if you are shown numerous cases of anomalies within our orderly world and experiences? What would you do or say? How would you begin to explain such anomalies away in the face of incontrovertible evidence?

The same man was not a LIVING soul until he received the breadth of LIFE (genesis 2:7)

It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7.

mazaje:
This guy has REALLY lost it. . . .Abuzo-lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala. . . . . . . . . . .vairo pls don't dare the Abuzo-lalalalalalalala. . . .

You're very correct!

Abu Zola:
@viaro, kindly tell us the town of hud and shuaib, am going to expose you tonight

Just shut up. . . you son of 'madanite' You exposed your own ignorance twice over with 'madanite' and you're still mouthing off like you're the best thing since sliced bread.

mazaje:
Why baby? I just want to see the credible sources(Like the NAS) that declare that naturalism is in adequate to provide explanations or evidence as to the origin of life as you said. . . . .I am not interested in any debates about what the dichotomy between explanation and evidence is. . .I just want to see the sources. . . .Pls don't consider this proposal as part of the debate but as me asking you to provide something for me.

Okay, off camera I shall look out for some sources for my own statement - it is not so much a NAS paper of my inference, and I'll like for us to keep in mind that the question is on the origin of life.

The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet in the natural sense. Scientist try or propose various hypothesis using natural explanations. There have been a variety of experiments that try to tell us some possible roads,(Like Miller–Urey experiment). These are the way naturalism tries to explain the origin of life. Are the explanations acceptable or convincing enough? To some they are and to some they are not but they are explanations never non less.

I understand what you're trying to proffer; and although the Miller-Urey experiments was a hoax (or more aptly an attempt which proved unscientific), there have been other naturalistic postulations which are molded after the same philosophical approach and yet still fail to touch upon the very question of the ORIGIN of life. Others may include the panspermia - the hypothesis that life on earth originated from microorganisms from outer space; etc. In all honesty, these are not 'explanations'  as far as the ORIGIN of life is concerned.

You are trying to run way here. . . . .Where did I make any argument to the contrary? I did not even say that life evolved or did not evolve by chance. I only challenged his claims based on the fact that he did not provide any objective basis for declaring that life can never evolve but had to come about only by the magical interference of a deity.

No, this is not about running away. Having explained what was meant in my posts, I still await your own evidence/explanation for this assertion:

mazaje:
Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

. .  again, may I remind you to please note carefully, we are talking here about the ORIGIN of Life.

noetic16:
empirical evidence that "God did it"?. . . . . .

This is pretty obvious and I have repeatedly stated this on this forum. . . , . just cant lay my hands on the links now, . .but the thread is titled NOETIC EXPLAINS WHY GENESIS IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN SCIENCE. . . .the thread was initiated by krayola.

Did a search and found 'Noetic2 Explains Why Genesis Is More Credible Than Science'. I'll take some time to read through in coming days.

1. . . . . based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind. The only explanation for the continuos increase and sustanance of the worlds population has been reproduction. . .which u and I are products of. . .this is experimentable and observable and as such empirical and serves as an evidence. Reproduction as a means of replenishing is an exclusive preserve of the creation argument.

I'm afraid that's not an empirical evidence in the least. I won't go into that presently, but maybe we shall have ocassion to think carefully through and see that an assertion of such does not actually establish empirical foundations for evidence of a scientific nature. One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

The claim that other species (including man) are products of inorganic/non-living substances as postulated in theories is false and not empirical.

It all depends on how the hypothesis is set forth, afterall man was created from non-living matter (from the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7).

Abu Zola:
@viaro, stop making fun of yourself, Madanite or whatever you call is in Israel, thats even the home town of moses, you should know me well by now that i can embarass you by quoting the bible with full detail, so don't dare me

Stop acting like a 'la-la'. Where did you read me writing any 'madanite'? Where in the Bible did you see 'madanite'? Why are you adding such emptiness to the 'la-la' in your user-ID?

Howdy, noetic16. I am not sure about this:

noetic16:
The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did.

'Empirical' and 'evidence' - those are very heavy words to throw around. Could you please show such empirical evidence establishing what you asserted?

mazaje:
Pls just go ahead and provide your credible sources(Like the NAS) that declare that naturalism is in adequate to provide explanation as to the origin of life. . . . .

Oh dear. .  oh dear. .  oh dear me!  I sorta like you this funny chap! I was only trying to bring us to level ground so that neither you nor I run the risk of criss-crossing some 'contextualizations' to diametric tunnels. That was just simply why I asked you to let me know what you intend to make between 'explanations' and 'evidence'.

If there's any luck that you might do so, please understand that we're looking at something most pivotal here in one of the claims you made tonight:

mazaje:
Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

That is the one point that I would like to see - how NATURALISM provides explanations for the ORIGIN OF LIFE. Please set forth your hypotheses, theories, models, laws, etc. for the naturalistic explanations of the ORIGIN of Life, thank you.

My friend you are dancing around. . . .You should have had enough boogey at the club, church or where ever over the new year day celebration. .

Look here my man, I will personally hold you responsible if my date fails tonight! Yes, I had a whole lot goodies (and hiccups). . so why blame me if I was yarning like a drunk?!?

In my view I have NOT seen any objective source that says life can not evolve by chance and can only come about by the magical interference of a deity. I have not seen such a paper. . . .He is a biologist(scientist) so I believe he was not arguing philosophically but scientifically. His scientific basis for saying that life could never have evolved on this planet by chance but can only come about by the magical interference of a deity is what?

Let's be objective now, if you may. True, he is a scientist - and even if we ignore the philosophical basis of his statement, let's move over to the materialist/naturalist who argues to the contrary. You also made an assertion:

mazaje:
Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

. .  and I await your own evidence for that. Please note carefully, we are talking here about the ORIGIN of Life.

BTW, have I wished you a Happy New Year? Here's one.

mazaje:
Abuzo- lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala. . . . . .The comedian is back again. . . . . . . .

mazaje:
, The atheist does not post a disclaimer and beats a retreat, Its you who always assumes wrongly and tries to force the atheist to accept things as defined or contextualized by you .

What did I force you to "accept", mazaje? And as for beating a retreat, I said that when the atheist is closely examined, he posts a disclaimer - that is clearly what you have done without my forcing anything on you or any atheist. Again, with 'contextualised', I often leave you pointers or references, for I certainly mentioned 'atheist authors' - if I failed to mention their names specifically, it still does not change anything!

I will like to see credible sources from authoritative scientific bodies(like the NAS) that declare that scientific naturalism is inadequate to provide explanations for the origin of life. I agree that scientific naturalism might not be able to provide evidence but explanations? I will like to see such sources that make that declaration

Please let me know what you intend to make between 'explanations' and 'evidence' and then I shall oblige you some sources for what I have been saying.

I said it is a baseless claim because he did not provide any objective basis why he made that blanket statement. . .On what objective basis did he come to the conclusion and authoritative assert that life could not evolve and could only come about through the magical wonder of a deity?

In my view, I don't see it as baseless because I have not seen any sources where life is said to have evolved by chance with any shred of evidence. If he was reasoning philosophically, would it be baseless as well? If your answer is yes, by what philosophy? But even so, I have not argued for the God-hypothesis other than saying that it is 'not inferior' to any so-called 'science' of LIFE origins. If you do have any shred of 'evidence' for how life must have evolved by chance, would you like to share?

I my assertion was not ill-informed IMO. . .I say this because he did not provide give an objective basis for declaring that life could never evolve on this planet. . . .I am not saying that life evolved, Why should he make that forceful and blanket statement without providing any objective basis for his assertion

Okay, I respect your 'IMO' as much as I have mine. However, I think the statement was “Life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth", and I reckon there is a huge difference.

To say that 'life could never evolve on this planet' makes for the idea that it is impossible with a finalist tone at all times - past, present, future; whereas “Life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth" looks at considerations in the past that do not yield a contrary view.

However, if I'm not mistaken, my post would have been the first in this thread to point to 'origin' - and that is what I was looking at in reference to ABIOGENESIS in the OP. It is not a simplistic question of species evolving through time; but rather the question of LIFE having evolved by chance.

I hope this will sort out a few things.

Abu Zola:
Muslim website my foot,

^^ Nice. . . from henceforth, kick all muslim websites with your foot!

so tell me where is madanite located, yemen or jordan ? None abi, Hahaha, mr man you are faraway from the truth, your brethren are watching your useless ranting

Since I never wrote "madanite", I should leave you guessing between Yemen, Jordan and Arabia! Go back and see the spelling of what I wrote. . abuzo-lala!

mazaje:
You my friend are a very funny person, I said that theist sometimes use the natural scientific explanation to discredit the explanations of those on the opposing side because the god hypothesis is not self evident and you come up with this rejoinder? Are you confused?

No, I am not confused - and you should have tried to reason through carefully so that it does not appear you are the confused one between us. You may have posted that reply hastily; but even without the patience to have understood the collective points I set forth, it should be clear that worldviews and science are not to be confused. It is insignificant whether the theist or atheist tries to use natural science to discredit the views of the 'opponents'; but at the basics we should both understand that neither theism not atheism is 'science'.

According to wikipedia Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. My atheism is the rejection of theism and also the position that deities do not exist how is that not a rational atheistic position?

It is irrational because the thought of two atheists arguing the meaning of atheism by trying to discredit theism is just plain comedy. It is analogous to two theists arguing the meaning of theism by trying to discredit atheism - how does that help establish the basic meaning of theism for these two confused chaps? I do not have to try to discredit a worldview that I don't subscribe to just to define my own worldview - and that is what you did not notice in your postulation earlier. Two atheists arguing the meaning of atheism between themselves by trying to discredit theism is just not rational.

Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life NOT answers to the origin of life.

Hahaha! My man mazaje, do you have a hangover from the new year partying? How do you try to "explain" the orgin of life while at the same time running away from answers about the same origin of life?

Excuse me, bro. . but what exactly are you reading in this thread?

I notice that you have changed you assertion from answers to the origin of life to explanations about the origin of life.

Okay, just leave it at ORIGIN of life. Does that help? Whether it is an answer to, or an explanation for, the ORIGIN of LIFE - it is still about the QUESTION of the origin of life sir! Please tell me with your naturalism how life ORIGINATED.

The point is naturalism has never claimed that it has the answers to the origin of life question, it only tries to explain the origin of life.

Your beautiful semantics. . hehehe! What is the difference up there, huh?

You said that "The philosophical paradigms driving origins research have not even come close to controverting the plain fact that naturalism does not have ANY answer to the ORGIN of LIFE." and I asked you to tell me when naturalism claims it has the answers to the origin of life?

That is true, and whether you take it as "answer to" or "explanation for" - it is still the same, thanks for asking!

Lady 234:
But pentecostals usually have on their signboard an image of their pastor and his wife which is clearly a breaking of the 2nd commandment.

This does not apply to all pentecostals, and it is quite fundamentalist of you to make such broad generalizations about anybody.

mazaje:


I didn't even make any claim about life evolving by chance or not evolving by chance. You are assuming what I did not even say,

Sorry about the assumption. Even so, I was not trying to assume anything into your posts (I had a hunch that when the atheist is closely examined, he is more likely to post disclaimers and beat a retreat!) .

Did I say that life can evolve by chance. Some guy made a blanket statement that life can not evolve on this planet, Do you agree with that?

I agree with that.

If you do then you can consult him and the two of you should provide us with evidence to show why life can not evolve by chance on this planet and can only come about by a god supposedly Yahweh. . . . .

Like I said, mazaje, I do not confuse between worldviews and science. The philosophies driving the two positions are very, very different and thus cannot be confused to make them bedfellows.

On the other hand, proferring evidence for ORIGINS science is one thing; while extrapolating such evidence for a holistic approach is quite another thing entirely. Often, my style of looking at either positions is to consider them on their own merits and philosophical approaches rather than mix them up.

The 'life orgins' science is one branch of scientific enqiry that many scientists are currently looking into more and more in recent times. of course, even though they are approcahing their enquiries in holistic or systems sciences (such as systemics), it often follows a philosophy of naturalism. Consequently, in all the attempts that have been made in scientific progress, scientists are leaning towards the position that naturalism is inadequate to provide explanations or any 'evidence' for the origin of life. This does not mean that they are necessarily delving into the metaphysical (although metaphysics is also part of the systemics approach); and we understand why - because naturalism does not make grand statements about what is beyond its explanatory philosophies.

The above is just a summary for my leaning towards the understanding that naturalism does not explain the ORIGIN of life, because the philosophy that drives that kind of origins research is not concerned with other fields of enquiries that show that life comes from life.

Your evidence that I said life can evolve by chance is?

I posed that question from this part of your previous response:[list]

And why should we believe this baseless claim? His evidence that life could never evolve by chance is what?.

[/list]. . because it suggests to me that you know far more than you can assert by claiming that someone else's statement is 'baseless'. That being so, it would be nice to see the basis of your own ideas that inform your assertions - otherwise what you are at pains to argue is as baseless as anyone could imagine.

I did not make any blanket claim or statement about the the evolution of life. . .He did, he should then go ahead and provide evidence to show that to us.

Well, I am not in a position to defend his original thesis; but I reckon that your hasty assertion was ill-informed.

@chukwudi44. .

Let's revisit the Psalm 68:17, and here I quote one of your earlier posts:

chukwudi44:
There is no in the bible where chariots of fire are used to describe angels,and psalm 68:17 was definitely not talking about angels.

The Chariots of Psalm 68:17

Some Catholics argue that Psalm 68:17 (or Psalm 67:18 in Douay Rheims) has no reference to angels, although these Catholics often have no answers when asked what that verse refers to by the term 'chariots' in the statement: 'the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels'.

In denying the above, you did not explain or give an alternative meaning of that term in that verse. However, even Catholic references point out clearly that 'chariots' are connected with angels - and much more than 'seven' angels.

For instance, in 1 Paralipomenon 28:18 we read of 'the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings' ('Paralipomenon' is an obsolete name for the OT books of 'Chronicles'). Also, 'chariots of fire' in 2 Kings 2:11 is a reference to angels; the same thing is meant by 'chariots of fire' in 2 Kings 6:17.

Especially in Zechariah 6:1-8, the direct link between angels and chariots of fire is made clear. When the prophet asked: 'What are these, my Lord?', the angel answered: 'These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth' (verse 5). As noted earlier, angels are ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14); but they are not to be confused for 'the seven Spirits' in Revelation 4:5 and 5;6.

While it is remarkable that the revelation of angels known as 'seraphim' was given only to the prophet Isaiah (chapter 6), it is equally fascinating that the revelation of angels known as 'cherubim' was given only to the prophet Ezekiel (chapter 10 etc). Affirming the case for Ezeliel, your own Catholic sources note that - "It was Ezechiel that saw the glorious vision, which was shewn him upon the chariot of cherubims", Ecclesiasticus 49:10. Why would even this verse be speaking of 'chariot of cherubim' if chariots have no reference whatsoever in angels?

I hope that these references would help sort out the enigma of 'chariots' as referring to 'thousands of angels' in Psalm 68:17 for you, chukwudi44? All you needed to do was carefully check your own Catholic sources about these things and not just argue endlessly that there are only 'seven angels' who stand in God's presence.



I've a date shortly, so my posts on the meaning of the 'seven Spirits of God' as a divine title of the Holy Spirit will come later. God bless.

mazaje:
When atheist are debating atheism between themselves non of them tries to use the supernatural argument to buttress his/her position they just make their case and move on, What about conflicting god hypothesis?.

They do not need to make appeals to any theistic concept - without any theistic help they still argue and wrangle over the meaning of atheism.

Knowing very well that their god hypothesis explains nothing they try to use natural scientific explanations sometimes to discredit those on the opposing view side, Why? because they KNOW very well that the god hypothesis CAN NOT stand on its own and is not self evident.

This is just plain crass!   WHY do atheist have to try to discredit theism in their attempt to find a meaning for ATHEISM? You, mazaje, are very funny!  This kind of argument is very frivolous and embarrassing to the rational atheist. If such an atheist cannot find meaning for his atheism until he makes an appeal to theism, he is both at a lose to himself and a non-starter presupposition.

Evolutionist do not leave the realm of scientific naturalism and try to use supernatural explanations to explain the validity of there assertions when debating each other do they?

Did I interpolate supernaturalism into evolution? Or does evolution now equate to atheism?

The FACT that the various proponents of the god hypothesis sometimes drop their god explanations and use natural scientific explanations when discrediting each others assertion is very telling. .

Not for me, because I don't muddy the waters and confuse one thing for another.

And when did naturalism ever claim that it has the answer to the origin of life?.

Oh puhleease!   You have started this empty drivel again. If naturalism does not have any explanations to the ORIGIN of LIFE, what are you arguing here?

mazaje:
I believe that all the gods of man made religion are man made, and there are so many evidence to show that men created all the gods they worship and espouse. No god can be shown to exist outside human cultural traditions, mythologies and stories. Lets take the christian religion, The christian hypothesis does not just say that god created the universe and everything and stops there, It goes further and claims that this god has certain attributes, these attributes are incompatible and make it impossible for this said god to exist. . . . .  This god is also said to have attributes or does things that can be objectively observed. But the problem is that non of these attributes have ever been objectively observed at all. Personally I can accept the deist position but that claim it self has a lot of problems and is not self evident. . . . . . . . The deist assert that god created the universe, They refuse to tell us the nature of this god, why he created and his purpose of creating the universe. In fact they refuse to tell us how these god can be seen, known or encountered, They just make a non evidential claim and the that's it. . . . . . . .

I have no problem with your 'belief'; it could be placed anywhere in the larger context of atheistic assumptions in the writings of several atheist authors and still be found to be quite a vacillating position between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism.

And why should we believe this baseless claim? His evidence that life could never evolve by chance is what?.

Your evidence that life could have evolved by chance is WHAT?

His evidence that life was created by a god to show that it can never evolve by chance is?. . . . . .  . We should accept this blanket statement because he said so?

No, but I would like to see your own evidence that life could have evolved by chance completely on its own. This does not make any appeal to the God-hypothesis, but please show me the scientific evidence you have for the -life-evolved-by-chance hypothesis.

@chukwudi44. . . in the preceding posts I have tried to show that the number of angels who stand in God's presence is far more than 'seven'; and also noted that there is no reason to insert 'arch[/i]angel' in place of 'angel' or 'Spirit' in those verses in Revelation.

One more thing to clarify here before we go further: your reference to Raphael in Tobit 12:15 ([i]or in the book of Tobias 12:15). Even if we consult other references from Catholic Bibles, we shall find again that your arguments cannot be sustained. This was why I requested you in post #29 to please tell me what you understand by a cherub/cherubim - because it would have helped you see why your reference of Tobit 12:15 does not justify your arguments at all.

Does Raphael in that quote state that there are only 'seven arch[/b]angels' in God's presence? From all considerations, the answer is a solid [b]NO. Let's see how:

First, from various Catholic Bibles, Tobit/Tobias 12:15 are rendered thus:

[list]* Douay Rheims ~
¹⁵For I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord.

* New American Bible ~
¹⁵I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.

* New Jerusalem Bible ~
¹⁵I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory of the Lord.'[/list]

These various renditions are provided so that we can understand that there is nothing significant in Raphael's statement that we don't find among other numerous angels of God. Whether it is a matter of 'stand before' or 'stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory' or even 'enter and serve before the Glory' of the Lord, we find other angels doing just the same (Daniel 7:10 - 'thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him').

@chukwudi44, . . .

How Many Angels In God's Presence?

Some have mistakenly thought that there are only 'seven angels' or 'seven arch[/i]angels' who stand in God's presence. This idea is gravely mistaken because the reader forgets or ignores the other verses that speak of numerous angels in God's presence. Indeed, some angels and archangels declare that they stand in God's presence (such as Gabriel did in Luke 1:19); but they are not the only such angels who stand in His presence, for there are very many other angels in God's presence.

Revelation 5:11 tells us that there are many angels who are positioned round about the throne of God - and John was given a [i]symbolic number of emphasis of these numerous angels: 'the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.' This is not a literal number, but rather symbolic of what Hebrews 12:22 calls 'an innumerable company of angels.'

Other references to these innumerable company of angels in God's presence include the following:

[list]Deut. 33:2 - 'the LORD . . . came with ten thousands of saints'

Psalm 68:17 - the chariots of God are 'twenty thousand, even thousands of angels'

Daniel 7:10 - 'thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him'[/list]

The word 'saints' in Deut. 33:2 refers to angels, for indeed angels were sometimes also called 'saints' in just the same way that they were called 'sons of God' in the OT. For example, Daniel referred to angels as 'saints' in Dan. 8:13 ('. . I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, . .').

From these we find that it is not only seven angels that stand in God's presence - Scripture reveals that there are numerous angels who stand in God's presence, everyone of them ministering to and praising Him, as well being sent forth on special assignments. Indeed, rather than arguing from Rev. 8:2 that it is only 'seven angels' who stand in God's presence, we ought to understand that Daniel 7:10 says that 'ten thousand times ten thousand' who 'stood before Him'.

@chukwudi44, . . .

Seven Angels In God's Presence

In Revelation 8:2 we read of 'the seven angels which stood before God'; and the fact that they were given seven trumpets shows in context that these angels were chosen for the special assignments of sounding the judgements and mystery of God.

In just the same manner in Rev. 15:1, another set of 'seven angels' was assigned with pouring out the seven last plagues of God's wrath upon the earth. We read in verse 6 that 'the seven angels came out of the temple', signifying that they had been in the presence of God as well as those 'seven angels' Rev. 8:2.

Yet, in all this, it does not mean that these two sets of 'seven angels' were archangels, nor is there reason to twist any verse to interpret them as the 'seven Spirits of God' in Rev. 3:1. In Zehchariah 6:5, we read that there are 'FOUR spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth' - does that mean that there are "ONLY FOUR" spirits of the heavens who stand before the Lord? No; and so in the same manner, we should not hold too tightly to a certain number and make that the "only" set of spirit beings in heaven or who stand before God.

In Rev. 3:1 we also read of two sets of 'sevens' - (a) 'the seven Spirits of God' and (b) 'the seven stars'. The 'seven stars' have already been explained in Rev. 1:20 - 'The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches' - and SOLA has noted that these angels are 'messengers' who are 'pastors' of the seven churches. They are not 'archangels' either.

However, the term 'seven Spirits of God' in that same Rev. 3:1 does not mean 'seven angels' or 'seven archangels'. Even though 'angels' are spirit beings (Heb. 1:14) and they are sometimes called 'stars' (Job 38:7) or 'sons of God' (Job 1:6), angels are not confused anywhere for 'the seven Spirits of God' - a divine title which is reserved specifically for the Holy Spirit in His manifestations. We shall come back to these peculiarly divine manifestations of God's Spirit.

A Series of Sevens

By way of a reminder, note that the number 'seven' is used often symbolically in reference to completeness, perfection, extension, concentration,  or assemblage. There are other numbers (such as 'ten' and 'twelve') that are used to represent these things, and we find them in that same Revelation. However, this book of the Bible presents 'seven' mostly in relation to redemption and judgement. For this reason, we find a series of sevens in Revelation -

          *    seven churches which are in Asia (1:11)
          *    seven golden candlesticks (1:12)
          *    mystery of the seven stars (1:20)
          *    the seven Spirits of God (3:1)
          *    seven lamps of fire burning before the throne (4:5)
          *    seven seals (5:1)
          *    seven horns and seven eyes (5:6)
          *    the seven angels which stood before God (8:2)
          *    seven trumpets (8:2)
          *    seven thunders which uttered their voices (10:3)
          *    seven thousand men slain of earthquake (11:13)
          *    great red dragon with seven heads and seven crowns (12:3)
          *    beast out of the sea with seven heads (13:1)
          *    seven angels with seven last plagues (15:1)
          *    seven golden vials full of the wrath of God (15:7)
          *    seven angels with seven vials full of seven last plagues (21:9)

All these are symbolic references and we should study them in some more depth to grasp their significance. With particular reference to our current subject ('seven Spirits' and 'seven angels'), it would be more helpful to see their contexts before drawing any conclusions.

@chukwudi44

chukwudi44:
This is not a case of chukwudi44 vs viaro,it is a case of Rapheal and John vs viaro.

Very interesting, chukwudi44 . . . very, very interesting.

I have some time to spare this evening and will give articulate answers to your concerns. Apologies that my replies will be detailed in series for more substance on this subject. However, it is not a case of 'Rapheal and John vs viaro' in as much as my posts were trying to reason along what we find in Biblical revelation. Besides 'John and Raphael', we have to consult other Biblical prophets to get a clearer picture of what we're investigating.

So far, the concensus is that the angels in Revelation 8:2 are not to be confused or misconstrued for the Holy Spirit in His sevenfold manifestations in Revelation 4:5 or 5:6. Once you miss this point, you miss everything.

There is nothing symboic about the statements made by John and the Angel Raphael

I don't know so much about Raphael, but we all understand that John was given messages in Revelation which were mostly symbolic. Our friend SOLA in post #44 just above (and other posters) drove home this point so forcefully that it would be futile to dare to argue further.

For instance, 'the mystery of the seven stars' is symbolic and was explained in Rev. 1:20 as 'the angels of the seven churches'. If this explanation was not given, we might have wrongly inferred that the 'stars' are literal cosmoslogical bodies in the night sky - which is why many people think that Rev. 6:13 is speaking of literal 'stars of heaven' which 'fell unto the earth!' We should be careful here, chukwudi44, for it is clear that John was speaking symbolically rather than literally in those verses we're considering.

My consequent posts will try and extract some of the meanings of the symbols about the 'seven Spirits' that you are mistaking for the 'seven angels'. But first, we shall look at 'angels' and sort out a few things that have been confusing you on the subject of this thread.

It is not only Pentecostals that prefer expensive things. Concerning the world's most expensive chapel, São Roque church:

The assembly of the mosaic panels depicting The Baptism of Christ and Pentecost was not completed until August 1752, two years after the death of John V. At the time of its completion, it was said to be the most expensive chapel in Europe, funded by the crown using the gold and other wealth that flowed to Portugal from Brazil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sao_Roque_Church_(Lisbon)

mazaje:
The only way to know that the god did it hypothesis is inferior to scientific explanations is when you have two different proponents of the god hypothesis(e.g a Christian and a Moslem) trying to show that their own god hypothesis is the true one,

This is not even close to reasoning scientifically or philosophically. It is just about the same thing to say that "the only way" to know that atheistic hypothesis is empty is because atheists hold very different arguements about what atheism actually is. To make for a compromise, the empty talk about 'weak' and 'strong' atheism comes into play to pat atheists on the back.

Another example would be the statement that "the only way" to know that the evolution is inferior as a 'scientific explanation' for the origin of life is when we see that even evolutionists have two different propositions of their hypothesis - what we might call the 'Dawkins vs Gould' polarisations. Just because these two evolutionists argue diametrically opposed views about several things in evolution should not be grounds to make simplistic statements about "the only way" to know this and that as inferior.

The God-hypothesis is NOT inferior to any so-called 'science' of LIFE origins. The philosophical paradigms driving origins research have not even come close to controverting the plain fact that naturalism does not have ANY answer to the ORGIN of LIFE. The best anyone could argue is mere conjecture/speculation - which is nothing more than an inferior 'science' (if it could even pass for 'science' at all).

Abu Zola:
@viaro- you are talking shiit, jithro and co were israelite and never in jordan or yemen, infact they were Prophet contrary to the saying of the bible, you can deny the truth but thank God your xtrian brethren are watching

Look at this funny Abuzo-lala. What is wrong with you? The one thing that our brethren are watching is your comedy, so please continue to chase your tails. The fact is that Jethro was not an Israelite - rather, he was a Midianite (see Exodus 18:1).

Besides, are you saying that your Muslim brethren from those muslim websites are lying for saying that Shuaib of the Quran is the Biblical Jethro? If that is so, tell me Abuzo-lala: why would Muslim websites like to decieve other Muslims on that matter?

Every religion has its own identity, and that is why Islam may not have the features you mentioned (such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, doing miracles, etc). Even some of these things are said to occur in some sects in Islam (like performing mircales), and others deny them - in just the same way that some Christians do not believe in miracles or the gift of the Holy Spirit.