₦airaland Forum

The second point in (b) of your post - your quote from Al- Quran 79:30 -

'And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped'

This is actually funny, because when I asked a muslim friend to help me check that verse from his library of several qurans, he ran me a list that have them saying quite different things from your own quote. This list did not translate your excuse for an 'egg shape', but just left it out entirely while claiming something else. Here is what he sent me -

"And after that He spread the earth"
Saheeh International English Translation, Q. 79:30

"And the earth!- thereafter He stretched it out."
A. M. Daryabadi translation

"And after that, the earth: wide has He spread its expanse,"
M. Asad's translation

"After that He smoothed out the earth"
A. Bewley's translation

"And after that He spread the earth;"
M.T. Hilali/M.M. Khan translation

"and the earth did He prepare for life at a later date"
Al-Muntakhab's translation

"And after that He spread the earth,"
M.M. Pickthall's translation

"And the earth He extended after that"
Qaribullah/Darwish translation

"After this, He spread out the earth"
M. Sarwar's translation

"And the earth, He expanded it after that."
Shakir's translation

"And the earth, along with it, HE has spread forth."
Sher Ali's translation

"And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);"
Yusuf Ali's translation


There are several other qurans he quoted - quite a long list - on that same verse (Q. 79:30), which are all saying very different things from what you posted about egg-shape. A second look through the list reveals at least one that is close to your own quote, and is taken from the Khalifa translation -

*  "He made the earth egg-shaped"

Now, I already admit that I'm not a muslim and cannot pretend to have any muslim scholarship. However, I know from various sources (including my Muslim friend) who note that -

*  Khalifa's translation is spurious and dubious,
    and not many Muslims favour his translation

*  Muslims cannot trust Khalifa's translation because
    that is the one that is popularly known in the Muslim world
    to argue that at least two verse of the quran are false!

More than that, even where some Muslims try to save face by pandering to such translations as Khalifa's, it is clear that the issue of the arabic word 'dahaha' for egg-shape has been roundly debunked! If you want the links, I could post just one for you - at least, it should help you do your own research before blindly plagiarising dubious sources!

Having looked at what troubles you, I'd like to make two observations from your post:

(a)  your assertion that -
'the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed
was that the earth is flat'

(b)  your quote from Al- Quran 79:30 -
'And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped'

Let me first attend upon the first instance about your assertion in (a) above -

'the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed
was that the earth is flat'

. . . we know it is a blatant, shameless lie! The Quran was revealed in the 6th century AD, and the prevalent understanding at that period was a spherical earth, not a flat earth. You must have copied or plagiarised that obvious whopper from another muslim website in the belief that the quran introduced anything novel, as if nobody understood the shape of the earth until the 6th century AD! But let's make a quick check to see that many centuries earlier before the quran was scribbled, many philosophers have already established the sphericity of the earth:

[list]Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity. This idea influenced Pythagoras (b. 570 BCE), who saw harmony in the universe and sought to explain it. He reasoned that Earth and the other planets must be spheres, since the most harmonious geometric solid form is a sphere. After the fifth century BCE, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.[/list]

[list]Plato (427 BCE - 347 BCE) travelled to southern Italy to study Pythagorean mathematics. When he returned to Athens and established his school, Plato also taught his students that Earth was a sphere. If man could soar high above the clouds, Earth would resemble "one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is decked with various colours, of which the colours used by painters on earth are in a manner samples." (Phaedo, 110b)[/list]

[list]Seleucus of Seleucia (c. 190 BC), who lived in the Seleucia region of Mesopotamia, stated that the Earth is spherical (and actually orbits the Sun, influenced by the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos).[/list]

[list]The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476-550 AD), deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus, the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time" and the Gola ("sphere", state that the Earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 39,968 km, which is only 62 km less than the current value of 40,030 km. He also stated that the apparent rotation of the celestial objects was due to the actual rotation of the Earth, calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate.[/list]

[list]source for all the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_ref-dicks1_1-0 [/list]

You can see that long before Muhammad and Islam, the prevalent notion was that the earth was spherical, not flat. Besides, there have been great developments that established this fact, including -

* calculations of the earth's circumference

* the sphericity of other planets

* heliocentric theory where earth orbits the sun

Nothing in these areas have been improved upon by the quran; so the noise of your assertion for the 'prevalent notion' is a moot point.

Now, a second thing I'd like to point out: the Bible does not teach a flat earth, but rather indicate a spherical earth. Just two well-known verses would do for now -

Isaiah 40:22 -
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;
that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain,
and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job 26:7 -
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

These are two well-known verses that indicate the Biblical writers did not force the idea of a flat earth. For one, Isaiah speaks of the circle of the earth; and in Job we read of a remarkable fact - the earth hangs upon nothing!

Other Uses in Common Languages

(3) Not only does the phrase appear in the Bible, but even in common language usage outside of the Bible the phrase is used in reference to the same thing of all parts of the earth. Take the following examples:

[list] ________ [/list]

[list]As an idiomatic expression, the 'four corners of the earth' has the dictionary meanings of -
[li]The far ends of the world;[/li]
[li]all parts of the world.[/li]
For example, Athletes came from the four corners of the earth to compete in the Olympics.'
Reference: - The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.[/list]

[list]________[/list]

[list]An online reference gives these meaning:

* four corners of the earth
[list][li]four directions upon the earth,[/li]
[li]the four points of the compass (north, south, east, west);[/li]
[li]all over the world, far and wide[/li][/list]
http://dictionary.babylon.com/Four_corners_of_the_earth
[/list]

[list]________[/list]

[list]The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English also yields this meaning -

* the four corners of the Earth/world
literary
places or countries that are very far away from each other:
People from the four corners of the world have come to Ontario to make it their home.
[/list]

[list]________[/list]

[list]17. the four corners of the earth:
the most distant or remote regions:
They traveled to the four corners of the earth.
http://dictionary.infoplease.com/corner[/list]



From all the above, it is clear that those who use and understand the phrase 'the four corners of the earth' are not thinking of a flat earth. Rather, the phrase is used to mean the following, as we have seen -

* all parts of the earth
* the far ends of the world
* four directions upon the earth
* the most distant or remote regions
* the four points of the compass (north, south, east, west)
* places or countries that are very far away from each other

In none of these meanings is the phrase used to suppose a flat earth; and only dunces keep trying to force the meaning of a flat earth into that phrase.

It seems Nairaland is fast becoming a joke in this section. .  but let's laugh on all the same.

Abuzola, you're trying too hard at something very simple. The Bible does not teach your categorical duplicity, and here's how to sort out the misunderstanding you're cementing against your chest.


The Four Corners of the Earth

(1) The phrase "four corners of the earth" is not meant as a literal implication of a flat earth. That phrase is commonly used in reference to all parts of the earth - regardless of their cardinal points. This was clearly intended in the contexts of the verses you quoted from the Bible, especially when you compare the first two passages (Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1) with the third (Daniel 4:11). In the third instance, the meaning is clearly spelt out - "the ends of all the earth", which is no less the same as all parts of the earth.

(2) Other expressions are used in the Bible to refer to the same thing when speaking in reference to all the parts of the earth. Some examples include:

[list]All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee - Psalm 22:27[/list]

[list]He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God - Psalm 98:3[/list]

^^^ I've been wondering the same thing.

muhsin:
The top-selling Bible in North America will
undergo a revision, modernizing the language
in some sections and promising to reopen a
contentious debate about changing gender
terms in the sacred text. The New International
Version, the Bible of choice for conservative
evangelicals, is scheduled to be
completed late next year and published in 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0, _n_274299.html


Gender language has pitted evangelicals
against each other. So in some verses,
references to "sons of God" became "children
of God," for example. Supporters say gender-
inclusive language is more accurate and makes
the Bible more accessible, but critics contend
they twist meaning or smack of political
correctness.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/, evision/print/

But just what is wrong with a revised text of a translation? I sometimes are amazed at the very low IQ that muslims on Nairaland possess! Are you, dear muhsin, so ignorant of the very fact that there are already numerous REVISED qurans? I don't see what's biting you so much as to make that much noise on a revised English translation of the Bible - unless you're totally and calculatedly ignorant of the same thing happening to numerous English qurans -

---

[list]The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran
with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action?
There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts.
What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and
democratic world?

curled from: "Symposium: A New Koran?"
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30658[/list]


. . . . . .

[list]This is what the Muslims Against Sharia stated on their website:
"The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such."
Then follows a list of such verses -
read more here[/list]

. . . . . .


Even where muslim bookshops advertise some copies of the quran for sale, they (the muslims themselves) have clearly stated that the copies they carry for sale are revisions of some major works of some translators - an example:

[list]The Quran: Saheh International:
"This is the now-familiar Saheeh International English translation of the Qur'an. It includes original Arabic text. It is a paperback edition, measuring roughly 4" x 6". Saheeh International checked many previous translations verse by verse against accepted Arabic tafseer and revised the wording accordingly in clear, contemporary English.
http://islamicbookstore.com/b5269.html[/list]

---

I just don't see how some of you muslims (especially the ones on Nairaland) even try to operate on the borders of sanity. What is the headline news to you, muhsin, that you thought it erstwhile to even open this thread? Has the same thing not happened to the quran in the Islamic world - even by a major Muslim movement in Turkey who are sponsored to revise the quran by entirely removing numerous verses from its pages?

Rennerglo:
the problem is dat we did our introduction b4 i found out.

Found out what?

Hello Pastor AIO,

Although I would not have posted any thing in this thread (as the turn of the discussions here seems to have descended to an all time low), I'd like to throw in my bit to your interesting question - since it is an open one:

Pastor AIO:
This part is interesting.  Jesus once said to a lame man, prior to telling him to get up and walk, that his[b] sins were forgiven[/b].  That in itself was considered an act of God, but that is not what I want to get at.  By what means was the man's sins forgiven as Jesus had not shed any blood at that point yet, and there was no record of him killing any fatted calves to accomplish it either?  This question is not only to Nwankwo but to every one on the forum too.

The basis for the forgiveness of that man's sins (Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20) is the work of Christ on the Cross - in as much as it is prophetically understood as pertaining to the subject both in the past, the present and the future. I especially allude to the answer for this as Luke's Gospel points out: Christ demonstrated before His audience that He had "power upon earth to forgive sins" (Luke 5:24). Again, the question: on what basis does He have that power to do so?

As above, I intoned that His work on the Cross is to be understood prophetically as covering the sins of men (mankind) in the epochs before and after His death. Isaiah the prophet also made the same declaration during his ministry -

[list](a) on seeing a vision of God's glory, he cried out woe upon himself (ostensibly upon the realisation of his own sinfulness). However, when a seraphim touched his mouth with a live coal, he declared to Isaiah: "thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged".

(b) even so, Isaiah does not pretend or suppose that the basis for the purging of his sins was the burning live coal. .  NO. Rather, in referring to the Messiah, he prophetically proclaimed that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). This includes his own sins that was spoken about in (a) above.[/list]

All of this is well captured in Isaiah 53:11 - that the Messiah shall bear mankind's iniquities: all were laid upon Him. This is no less the case even in Christ's ministry on earth, for He had spoken of this same thing, that He had come to give His life as a ransom for the redemption of humanity (Mark 10:45). The basis of divine forgiveness, even including of the palsy's sins, is His blood - our iniquities were laid upon Him.

Hi Deep Sight and all,

Over the course of the last few days, a few materials have come to hand during my studies that opened up quite some interesting thoughts on this issue of singularity. I came to realise that we don't know as we think we do (especially as applies in my case). Following my post #14 from the previous page, I might need to pause a while and give some consideration to the gist in Deep Sight's perspectives on singularity and infinity - I think you're really on to something!

More later, as soon as I can find time to gather my thoughts together and wrap this neatly so that our readers can easily digest and follow.

Cheers.

If anything at all, the rapture is not calculated to occur on that date.

First, remove the last part of the link - '/index.html', and leave it simply as:    http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21

Second, the first line with their calculation, quote -

       "11,013 BC—Creation.  God created the world and man (Adam and Eve)"

. .  is damn wrong!  The Bible shows that creation is much older than 12 centuries, and people should wake up to reality and stop these silly arithmetic games. No particular date is given in the Bible as to when the rapture will occur. To prepare is good; but to make wild statements to sad.

The saying goes: 'curiosity killed the cat'. Does it apply here?
But doesn't it also say: 'a cat has nine lives?'

Guys, keep chasing until you die 9 times! After then, stop!

the company uses a ceramic bath tub for mixing dough for their pastries

https://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif Shame!

sad that some guys just wear trousers and act unmanly.

It's obviously an experiment that failed. It didn't happen today or yesterday, the seed has been sown a long time. So, setting up an ad hoc committee to 'find out' anything here is to take the same result we already know back to the government corridors and divide more loot. Someone once quipped that in 'Africa's giant' (Nigeria), the best thing that ever comes through its doors is non-productive education. It's all an experiment, folks. . (and blimey. . did I spell that right)

So what's the reference particularly at/on Christians for? If it's religion in general, discuss that and not trying to remodel the definition of who and what a Christian is.

mazaje:
No problelm at all. . . . .I shouldn't be asking you this because you werent the one that brought it up (davidylan brought it up). . . but I will still go ahead and ask you. . .

You accept that matthew wrote the gospel based on. . . . . . . . . . . ?

The tradition for authorship which began with papis or some other evidence you have to point to authorship outside of papias? I just want to know your position on that. . .

^^ Certainly it's a brilliant question to ask, mazaje. Although I do not force any assertions about Matthew's authorship of the Gospel that bears his name, I simply accept it as being so. On what grounds? Partly on textual criticism, and partly on general consensus. Of course, people may disagree one way or another (and I've tried to understand some of these disagreements, like the ones you raised against davidylan); but be that as it may, I don't think that the particular identity of its author is critical to my faith and commitment to Christ.

alex0026:
So in a sense,a christian is apparently a person who has lost the definition of what is right,just and proper and wants to be educated or re-educated by any human being with a good conscience.

alex, please don't go there. There's enough multiplicity of threads where this sort of distortion against Christians have been made. There are far more intelligent Christians than you know of, and trying to make statements like yours as highlighted is quite misleading, rabble-rousing and inflammatory.

Hallo Pastor AIO, glad to know you're doing well. I'm doing good and enjoying the day.

Pastor AIO:
If you don't mind I'd like to press you further on alex 0026's question.

No, I don't mind at all.

1)In your understanding of Esu in yoruba religious beliefs would you say that he was the same as Shaitan in the Quran, or satan in the christian understanding.

2)  From what you might understand about Witchcraft (Aje) in yoruba belief would you say that the witches in the bible (suffer not a witch to live) are brought about by the same phenomena.

To be honest with you, I don't know much about Yoruba beliefs and traditions. Rather than pretend anything here, I should confess my ignorance. It was only recently that I thought to look it up sometimes. .  I think after having read something about it mentioned in one of Deep Sight's posts in another thread. So, please forgive my vacancy at this moment, and I hope sometime in the future I'd be better able to make informed opinions on that and other issues.

3)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that El Elyon, high God of the Canaanites was the same El Elyon worshipped by the Jews and equated with Yahweh.

4)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that the canaanite El Shaddai, a rather different deity from El Elyon, was the same as the Yahweh worshipped by the Jews.

No, I would not say that. From my understanding, they are not the same, although in the languages and zeitgeist of people in that epoch, similar appellations may have been used for different deities. For example, Baal in one of such semitic languages happens to be 'Lord' (or 'owner', 'master' etc.) - and on that commonality, there are people who have no qualms assuming that name upon themselves and other people in positive ways rather than in diabolical sense. Some notable examples are Baal-hanan the son of Achbor (Gen. 36:38); and one of Joel's sons was named Baal (1 Chron. 5:4-5); and even contemporary times we know of "Baal Shem Tov", which is the name assumed by Israel Ben Eliezer, a Jewish mystical rabbi and the founder of Hasidic Judaism. The word 'baal' in that semitic language was simply understood as lord, owner or master, and may be used without particular attachment to diabolical interpretations.

Within the Jewish religion as recorded in the Bible, the Jews themselves might have been so influenced by the culture and languages of their neighbours that, it is most probable that they used the same name of "Baal" for the God of Israel whom they worshipped, --

        ^^. . And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi;
          and shalt call me no more Baali. [Hosea 2:16]

        ^^. . as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal  [Jeremiah 23:27]

_{** I should always leave a reminder of my disclaimer to other Christians and religious readers: please note that these are my views and do not constitute authority for anyone.}

I'll come straight up and state my reasons for asking these questions.  I am afraid of the problem of Conflation and whether it can render one's beliefs invalid.

I understand.

Hi again mazaje,

mazaje:
Why do you use the word MOST? LOL. . . do you have any evidence to show that most of the works in that period do not have the writers identifying themselves? Historical works even at that time typically had a table of contents, the authors of the works identified themselves, and they were written in a formal style. You can check The Wars of the Jews by Josephus(70CE), History of Rome written by the Roman historian Livy around 30 BCE, Tacitus the Histories 109 CE, The works of Pliny, Philo, Justus etc they all wrote in a formal style and identified themselves. . . .

Hehe, I apologise - I had over-reached myself in the use of the word "most". That said, the word was used in a broad sense without limiting myself to just Matthew's Gospel of the synoptic Gospels. I also hinted that might have been ("may be" the case with Luke's Gospel and the Acts; although I know that a plethora of other works evidently have intros to them. By the word "most", I do not mean "ALL".

alex0026:
Please i would like to know from you the difference between the meaning of Allah in the arabic tradition as recorded in the Quran and Olorun(or Oluwa) in the yoruba tradition as recorded in oral tradition of the yorubas?

As far as I know, they are NOT the same deities, nor do they have similar or identical modes of worship. You cannot mix them both into one singular model to arrive at a concept of "internally designed laws within an organised society". If you're convinced that there are no differences, that's fine and it's up to you to show how that they are the same.

mazaje:
I wasn't really trying to "show you" per say. . .I was just trying to make a case for my arguments. . . .

That's okay - and my point is that I was not ignorant of the sources your drew for your arguments, which are unnecessary. They are unnecessary because the point at which you quoted my post to discuss was not about authorship, but rather about the language in which a certain document appears. I think you're missing that point in your arguments and confusing the platforms.

The Papias argument is still valid and relevant because he was the first person to ascribe the document to matthew. . . .   weather the document(logia) he referred to and ascribed to matthew is the same document as the one that is in the new testament or not is not of importance to me personally. . . I am more interested in seeing the evidence that points to authorship or language of authorship outside the claim made by papias,  . . .hope you understand the point I am trying to make?

I do understand your point, but please see again the highlighted in yours: is it -

      (a)  authorship; or

      (b)  language of authorship?

These two things are not the same. The language is a secondary point which was based on my observation of an example where people confuse manuscripts for version/translation - as in the Wiki excerpt. It has absolutely no cogent or substantial relevance to the former question of authorship.

Be that as it may, I'm quite aware that most of the works in that period do not have introductions identifying them specifically - Matthew's Gospel happens to be one. The same may be said of Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, where the author identifies his recipient but not so much himself. It is in the Acts that critics gather their information to ascribe that document to a 'Luke the physician', even though I do not remember the author directly introducing himself.

The point is this: if you're going to make an argument that helps you believe that someone else wrote a particular document, your argument could either pass fo scholarly insight (in which case you apply the conventions of literary criticism or textual criticism); or otherwise fail to be convincing at any stretch (in which case you hold on to nothing other than "ipse dixit" statements). Now if you're going to help your arguments, it could not be based on "ipsedixitism" (as I have shown that is simply unconventional and froth with problems for your argument) - rather, you would have to show that, beyond the reference based on 3rd person narrative style, there is/are other reasons to identify that other author cogently rather than fictitiously.

alex0026:
But we forgot one thing:we were once a people governed by our own internally designed laws within an organised society.Secondly,we recognised and we believe in the presence of a supernatural being(God) within our society which is manifested in various forms in our culture.

^^^Lol, who are the "we" in your postulation there?^^^

Do you care to elaborate on the highlighted in colour - "governed by our own internally designed laws within an organised society"? What "organised society" are you on about?

mazaje:
It has been argued that that all the gospels were originally written in greek. . . .

The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias (bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor fl. first half of the second century). Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that "Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able". According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.[3] The interpretation of the above quote from Papias depends on the meaning of the term logia. The term literally means "oracles", but the intended meaning by Papias has been controversial. [3][17][18]

Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. [19][20]

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [3][21][22] Finally, not one of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [23]

Wikipedia

Papias talks about a logia written by matthew in the hebrew language but some scholars have said that is different to the gospel written in the new testament because the gospel of matthew that is in the new testament was originally written in greek. . . .I  do not know what to make of it all but your assertion that matthew was reputed to be written in hebrew does not hold any water either since no strong strong case has been made for it beside the citation from papias. . .

Lol, mazaje, thank you for trying to show me all that stuff. They are not new to me, and I've perused them extensively before your attempt here. Nonetheless, I appreciate your help (at least, other readers could find them useful where they might not have come across them). There are more sources I could show you concerning those matters, and even where Bart Ehrman has been shown up for his shoddy scholarship - example, check TRIABLOGUE. .com (for easy to follow discussions on that).

The point is, I am well aware of Papias argument - and that is a moot point. My surprise was that some one could claim that the Gospels and ALL the NT were written in Greek. That is not true, and I wanted to see who these "scholars" were that could make such unqualified assertions. I'm sure the Wiki contributor may have had a hard time sourcing those scholars, which was why I was glad to see the [who?] inserted. Surely Papias did not claim that ALL the NT were written in Greek, did he? And outside of Papias, is it impossible that others understood the fact that not all the NT were thus written in Greek? I noted somewhere (post #23) in this thread that many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript, and the Wiki source is just one example.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
OK I accept that I erred. . . . I have never came across any non fictional writing from the first centuary where the author addressed himself in the 3rd person. . . . .

If you re-read my post again. . . I said that mathew could not have written the gospel because of the three reasons I stated. . .

1. The entire gospel was written in 3rd person narrative
2. The author of the document did not state who he was, the document was anonymously written
3. The document was attributed to matthew by some one else long after the document was written. . .The gospel was attributed to mathew by papias in 120CE very long after it was written. . . . .

Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work but that is not the case with the gospels. . . .Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus,Philo,Justus of Tiberia etc all wrote documents and claimed authorship. . .even Julius Caesar claimed authorship in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico. . . .

I noticed that of all the points I made you were more interested in refuting the 3rd hand account declaration I made. . . .but that still does not help you in any way at all. . . .You did very well by providing evidence to show that people used to write narrative accounts in 3rd person but how does that show that matthew really wrote the gospel attributed to him? You also have never meet matthew, you only have an anonymous document that was later attributed to his name long after the document was written so, what evidence do you have to show that matthew  actually wrote the gospel attributed to him by papias? Any evidence from the document  itself to help you with that? What you need to know is that even at that time people use to claim authorship of their work. . . .

True, I examined your assertions denying the authorship of Matthew's Gospel on the basis of your three postulations, mainly because it of illeism. Nothing more than that. Your recent remarks are still founded on that same point and nothing more, and it would not be helpful for me to repeat my answers in other words. The "third person" reference, however you may argue it, is not cogent enough to form the substance of authorship of any document - even where the author does not explicitly introduce himself in that document. This was why I hinted that you make a simple check of illeism online and you will find a plethora of such works where authors make use of that literary style without even directly introducing themselves. I am not trying to force Matthew into the Gospel that bears his name; but the basis for your arguments do not hold, and that was what I have demonstrated.

Chrisbenogor:
Its not about force, just you pointing out something to me no?

No, it's not about force. Sorry if I unwittingly sounded otherwise.

4. Salvation, who will be saved , who will not?

I think I briefly answered that question in post #8? Question #2 in that post.

Deep Sight:
Chris, i am soon going to retire from the business of proving the existence of God on NL. I am certain enough has been said already. Maybe i will become Pastor BIO.

hahaha!! You, my guy, are very, very funny!

Deep Sight pally! Thou temptest me with the savour of thy broth, and lo thy bread still reveals some cause and effect to tempt for more!

_{Okay, just a poor attempt on ye ol' yinglish!}

I enjoyed your musings on the issue of creation and existence. . and I'm tempted to go progress our other threads a bit more. Patience.

As regards your enquiry:

Deep Sight:
VIARO: On the authourship of the gospels: could it be useful to consider the likely dates of such authourship and juxtapose this against the likely age of such apostles at that time? Also a consideration of the literary styles? See this Wiki Extract -

Yes, it could be useful, and a whole lot of interesting findings may result therefrom. The Wiki extract is interesting (as are Krayola's notes earlier). However, we should always bear in mind that as far back as post #25 I made the observation about literary criticism and quipped that, after applying any one of those literary criticisms, you will find your own results are contradicting every set of initial conclusions. And this is one thing I see in the extract above already. Here:

The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source". This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". [10].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

There are several theories and hypothesis in textual criticisms making the rounds about the canonical Gospels. The 'Two Source Hypothesis' (2SH) being one as in that quoted excerpt, and others such as the 'Marcan Priority' and the Griesbach hypothesis' (which was proposed as an alternative to the former two hypotheses). What is interesting is that these various theories yield a few similar inferences, but quite varying conclusions. While such criticisms may be useful to critics for whatever they're seeking, their conclusions do not have an overall conclusion on the matter.

Another point to note is that, it is true that some of the Gospel narratives are actually sourced from other material or sources. Although many traditional and fundamentalists groups feverishly argue that is impossible, such arguments are not what viaro holds. An example is Luke's Gospel - I do not need any of the prevailing hypotheses (2SH, Griesback or Marcian) to see that Luke 1:1-3 clearly indicates that the author gathered his information from various sources:

[list]'Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,'[/list]

The thing is that many people propound theory to find out what sources exactly had informed the Gospel writers - Matthew, mark, Luke and John - as well other gospels that did not survive canonicity.

That is not all, but -

The synoptic evangelists demonstrated reserve in altering or inventing stories about Jesus, and historians regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus.[4] Scholars[who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, see also Greek primacy.

The above highlights another problem I hinted about in post #25 about literary criticisms. The point should always be kept in mind that any particular type of textual criticism applied to studying ANY document will yield very diverse and contradictory sets of inferences. Here in the quote above, while I'm happy to read that some have made efforts to present "significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus", it saddens me to note other misleading assertions in that excerpt:

[list](a)  'Scholars[^who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek'[/list]

I have serious problems with that assertion. . and that is why I'm glad to see a radical question ['who'] after 'scholars'. Just who are these "scholars"? We kow that assertion is wrong by a mile, because Matthew is reputed to have been written in HEBREW while the other manuscripts of the same Matthew's Gospel are translations into Greek!

This was why I noted earlier on in this thread that Chris was right about me - I don't take anything at face value, nor would I even rationalize anything. At best, if I don't know, I simply don't know. At worst, I would be tacitly condoning an outright lie to nod to false assertions.

On the whole, Deep Sight, again those are just my views and do not hold authority for other Christians.

^^^ a few examples may be helpful to read.

^^^Nobody forces anyone to do so.

However, arguments aside, what sort of evidence is there for a universe that was not created? That is not a question for you to answer (since I said earlier that 'there are many questions I ask myself concerning that'). What amazes me is that outside of the Bible, existence is something which many enquirers are seeking answers to - whether in philosophy, the natural sciences, or other world views. If someone has made up their mind that they don't want to take the Biblical account of creation, does it rule out all questions about the fact that the universe did not spring into existence on its own? That has been a second question I've always asked myself.

^^^ The major one for me is creation.