Goshen360:

Which kind new discovery? Una dey quote yeye equivalent just to discredit the bible....all lies. Give me tithe and offerings and I will show you deeper things. I don't waste my time for nothing anymore.....not for Atheists

you will in turn pay tithe from the tithes and offering you receive.
still waiting for your kweshion

mkmyers45:

I have sent my widows mite now...Abi you no wan tell me? I am not an atheist sha

Noted, that you are not an Atheist but I never see the tithe for my paypal account. You dey carry me dey play ni? send to goshen360@yahoo.co.uk........am waiting.

Goshen360:

See as I carry speed go check my account only to realise you just dey carry me dey play. okay no worry. God dey sha. At least, Apostle go chop from the alter but as you decided to carry my Apostolic anointing dey play for nairaland, no wahala. But bear in mind, no tithe, no answer....lo ba tan.

Sirrrr

I no reach oooo

you no as paypal dey do...na delayed transaction

Service to receive pay

Delafruita:
you will in turn pay tithe from the tithes and offering you receive.
still waiting for your kweshion

Delafruita:
you will in turn pay tithe from the tithes and offering you receive.
still waiting for your kweshion

Okay my kweshion......In John 4:24, God is Spirit

Now, in Gen. 1:2 says, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. My question is, how can Spirit of Spirit moved on the water considering that God is Spirit. Hence, Genesis 1:2 can be rephrased thus,

.....the Spirit of Spirit (God) moved on the face of the waters.

Just only this one kweshion sir.

plaetton:

Ha ha ha. that is very funny.
In your haste you missed one crucial point: Fishes wash up on shore when they are dead or near death. So even if there were no surfaces to wash up on, they would still be dead because of the prolonged turbulence and disruption of their ecosystem.

Pls take a refresher course in marine biology. Infact, marine life are much more sensitive to disruptions in their environment than terrestial lifeforms.

You would have to show from scripture that the flood was turbulent, you would also have to show from scripture that fish died. I don't want to answer from silence.
Sorry I have already speculated previously but to carry on would be to argue over "could-haves" and things the bible did not say.

wirinet: Mkmyers45, let me help you put. The question should be, how did FRESH WATER fishes survive the flood, since 45% of all fishes are fresh water fishes.
You can thank me later.

Now let's see how they wriggle out of this one.

Again, I will not argue from silence. If it is true that God can destroy the world via the the flood, then it is equally true that He can preserve the fish He wants to keep alive

Goshen360:

The fact is fishes survive in water. There wasn't science to prove what percentage you are referring to now then. The truth is you guys don't believe the bible - the word of God. So explaining how this happened and how that happened will be hard explaining to you guys. Go back to creation and see fishes that were created. We have "suggested" according to the word of God that everything created have what is called "seed" inside them to produce after their kind. It is possible not all species of animals that was created exist now just like God didn't create Adam a dwarf, so how did people like dwarf came to be? You guys just want to be a critics to the bible.

Yes fishes survive in water but fresh water fishes cannot survive 5mins in salty sea water. I have seen the Kuramo beach water from the ocean overflowing into the lagoon waters of the Kuramo and instantly you will see the fishes of the lagoon trying to jump out of the water and within 10mins they are all dead.

So unless you postulate that there were no fresh water fishes before Noah's flood, you will have to explain how fresh water fishes and amphibians survived the flood.

Mr_Anony:
You would have to show from scripture that the flood was turbulent, you would also have to show from scripture that fish died. I don't want to answer from silence.
Sorry I have already speculated previously but to carry on would be to argue over "could-haves" and things the bible did not say.


Again, I will not argue from silence. If it is true that God can destroy the world via the the flood, then it is equally true that He can preserve the fish He wants to keep alive

If yahweh can simply preserve the animals he does not want to destroye, then why go through the trouble and shenanigans of building the ark in the first place.

wirinet:

Yes fishes survive in water but fresh water fishes cannot survive 5mins in salty sea water. I have seen the Kuramo beach water from the ocean overflowing into the lagoon waters of the Kuramo and instantly you will see the fishes of the lagoon trying to jump out of the water and within 10mins they are all dead.

So unless you postulate that there were no fresh water fishes before Noah's flood, you will have to explain how fresh water fishes and amphibians survived the flood.

It is called the SUPERNATURAL. You are referring to the natural but God can defile the natural to cause a Supernatural effect.

wirinet:

If yahweh can simply preserve the animals he does not want to destroye, then why go through the trouble and shenanigans of building the ark in the first place.

I believe God has the ability to make His decisions the way He chooses.

Goshen360:

Okay my kweshion......In John 4:24, God is Spirit

Now, in Gen. 1:2 says, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. My question is, how can Spirit of Spirit moved on the water considering that God is Spirit. Hence, Genesis 1:2 can be rephrased thus,

.....the Spirit of Spirit (God) moved on the face of the waters.

Just only this one kweshion sir.

you didnt complete john4:24.infact to understand that verse,you have to go back to john 4:7.jesus meets the woman of samaria at a well and the discussion progresses to a point where she says in verse 19 "sir i perceive that you are a prophet".she goes ahead to say her fathers worshipped on the mountain but that yeshwa now says jerusalem is the place for worship to which jesus responds "the time is coming when neither on this mountain nor in jerusalem will you worship the father".he goes further in verse 23 "but the hour is coming and now is,when the true worshippers will worship the father in spirit and truth,for such the father seeks to worship him".verse 24 then expands this by saying "god is spirit,those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth".
i perceive you assume the phrase "god is spirit" refers to physical attributes however this is just to teach the followers that the worship of god goes beyond the physical things we do.it goes neyond obeying the commandments,it goes beyond camouflaging.god sees our hearts and he wants us to worship him with our body,spirit and soul.the 20 verses pass across one message and you need to read and understand them as been one long sentence.that phrase "god is spirit" cannot be isolated and branded with its own meaning
its similar to john 1:1 saying "and the word was god".or other phrases like "the lord is my shield and my buckler" "the lord is a consuming fire" etc.
genesis 1:2 could be rendered "....and the WIND of god was moving over the......".the hebrew word "ruach" could and is translated severally in the bible as either wind,spirit,mind or breath.for example exodus 15:10 has the same word "ruach" and its translated as "thou didst blow with thy wind,the sea covered them......."
the same word is used in genesis 8:1 and it reads "and god remembered noah and...............and god made a wind blow over the earth......"

i will ask the following questions again cos they haven't been answered

Seeing as though everything we, including Christians, enjoy in the modern world is a product of science, why do Christians so fervently deny factual scientific evidence that disproves so many aspects of the bible and their religion as a whole?


Why is it that when a Christian is faced with questions that have huge negative implications towards the logic of their faith, they conveniently say that it is in God's plan? Is the scope of their own understanding of the religion and God they have offered their souls to so limited that their only answer is 'God's plan'? Judging by the above mentioned failures, God's plan does not seem to be a very good one.

ifeness: i will ask the following questions again cos they haven't been answered

Seeing as though everything we, including Christians, enjoy in the modern world is a product of science, why do Christians so fervently deny factual scientific evidence that disproves so many aspects of the bible and their religion as a whole?

what are those scientific evidence that disprove the bible?

e: Why is it that when a Christian is faced with questions that have huge negative implications towards the logic of their faith, they conveniently say that it is in God's plan? Is the scope of their own understanding of the religion and God they have offered their souls to so limited that their only answer is 'God's plan'? Judging by the above mentioned failures, God's plan does not seem to be a very good one.

it is god's plan for his plan to be good sometimes and bad sometimes

plaetton: Gen.1:8. And god called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
But created the sun and the stars on the 3rd day(gen. 1:14), so hw did we get morning and evening on the first and second days if there was no sun?

wow

@delafruita
After your Christianity Expiration how are you gona look back at this thread? Victor or Vanquished?

diluminati: @delafruita
After your Christianity Expiration how are you gona look back at this thread? Victor or Vanquished?

for every point i have madde on this thread,i know the loophole.i just wanted to get into the shoes of christians and this thread has only served to remind me of the excessive flaws.it makes me pity the christians on this board.they have to defend the undefendable so its no wonder they fall short of expectation.
btw my sojourn in christendom expires in about 4hours so.........

Delafruita: i have noticed that a large number of christians on this board always quote from the bible to defend their religion.except for a few like Mr_Anony,buzugee and sometimes truthislight,others just keep quoting solely from the bible.its like they dont have any other source of information about their "savious".despite the onslaugght on yeshwa by atheists,they havent been able to come up with any independent information.

sometimes,i put a question to them with the knowledge of possible credible defences that they should profer but they always "fall my hand" except for Mr_Anony.

now,if i were a christian,no atheist can best me in a debate about the existence of jesus and about the authenticity of the bible.not because i will make incoherent and rigid arguments but because there exist lots of information which when when conjoined appropiately could account prove these points.

i will be on the side of the christians for the next 24hours so you guys better watch out

you do know that scripture do say that For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight I CORINTHIANS 3 VS 19. scripture also do say For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom 1 CORINTHIANS 1 VS 25. which beggars the question, why will i source mere mortals for info when i can get it from the mouth of the king of kings, the wisdom of Yah, the bible that is

obadiah777: you do know that scripture do say that For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight I CORINTHIANS 3 VS 19. scripture also do say For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom 1 CORINTHIANS 1 VS 25. which beggars the question, why will i source mere mortals for info when i can get it from the mouth of the king of kings, the wisdom of Yah, the bible that is

if i werent a christian.....................

Delafruita:
if i werent a christian.....................

you aint one. you are a heathen

@ Delafruita,

Okay. I don resume now. Make we continue. The answer you gave to my question was far way off the track. I also need tithe from you too to tell you that answer, . Very simple answer na eim you dey fumble like this. I just ate eba now and it's making me feel sleepy but I will make to go some length with you.

Back to our discussion on Gen.1:1-2, can we kick off? We will answer the question of how there can be day without the sun and many more. Are you ready now? E be like say the heat don reduce small.

Goshen360: @ Delafruita,

Okay. I don resume now. Make we continue. The answer you gave to my question was far way off the track. I also need tithe from you too to tell you that answer. Very simple answer na eim you dey fumble like this. I just ate eba now and it's making me feel sleepy but I will make to go some length with you.

Back to our discussion on Gen.1:1-2, can we kick off? We will answer the question of how there can be day without the sun and many more. Are you ready now? E be like say the heat don reduce small.

lets hear it

obadiah777: you aint one. you are a heathen

for the next 3 hours,i am still a christian

Delafruita:
lets hear it

Okay. First, When the bible says "In the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 and "In the beginning" of John 1:1, What does the beginning of Gen.1:1 means? Is it the same with that of John 1:1? If not, what is/are the difference? Let's take it one after the other line-by-line.

Where is Delafruita sef, abeg I wan go take a nap o. ~yawning~

Goshen360:

Okay. First, When the bible says "In the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 and "In the beginning" of John 1:1, What does the beginning of Gen.1:1 means? Is it the same with that of John 1:1? If not, what is/are the difference? Let's take it one after the other line-by-line.

both "in the beginning"s are the same

Goshen360: Where is Delafruita sef, abeg I wan go take a nap o. ~yawning~

was taking dinner

Delafruita:
both "in the beginning"s are the same

That is incorrect. Now let's prove it. The "In the beginning" of John 1:1 antedates the one of Gen. 1:1. Let us prove it line-by-line.

Goshen360: Where is Delafruita sef, abeg I wan go take a nap o. ~yawning~

also watching the US open

Goshen360:

That is incorrect. Now let's prove it. The "In the beginning" of John 1:1 antedates the one of Gen. 1:1. Let us prove it line-by-line.

my interest has been spiked..........please continue

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

That of Genesis talks about time, space and matter - In the beginning (time); the heavens (space) and matter (earth). That of John 1:1 refers to dateless past or eternity for it speaks of Jesus in his pre-existence WITH GOD. John did not find a word to use, hence he said in the beginning.

Now, put both together and you will realize John 1:1 antedates Gen. 1:1 because when Gen. 1:1 first mentioned God, it will therefore mean God existed before He could create and John 1:1 told us the Word was WITH GOD and this Word is God. This is why the word God which is "Elohim" in Hebrew is plural but not as Gods because the verb construction is singular. So Gen. 1:1 is simply referring to "TIME" when the heavens and the earth was created.

Do you agree with this explanation before I proceed ?

Goshen360:

That is incorrect. Now let's prove it. The "In the beginning" of John 1:1 antedates the one of Gen. 1:1. Let us prove it line-by-line.

this should be interesting

Goshen360: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

That of Genesis talks about time, space and matter - In the beginning (time); the heavens (space) and matter (earth). That of John 1:1 refers to dateless past or eternity for it speaks of Jesus in his pre-existence WITH GOD. John did not find a word to use, hence he said in the beginning.

Now, put both together and you will realize John 1:1 antedates Gen. 1:1 because when Gen. 1:1 first mentioned God, it will therefore mean God existed before He could create and John 1:1 told us the Word was WITH GOD and this Word is God. This is why the word God which is "Elohim" in Hebrew is plural but not as Gods because the verb construction is singular.

Do you agree with this explanation before I proceed ?

i dont agree with this.on what basis do you assume that john didnt know what word to use?wasnt the bible inspired by god?