MuttleyLaff:


As you can seen from the above underlined, unlike you going on a rant
my comment is on topic and related to refuting that the bible is not always a cogent narrative

MuttleyLaff:
The bible in some places is cogent, some places not cogent, another place silent and some other places deductive reasoning is employed

PastorAIO:
So in your mind now you have refuted it

PastorAIO:
So since you are now advocating for kondomatic then perhaps you can take up the baton for him at the point where he ran away.

His response was refuted with the the bible passages in the above quote. Please address that and tell us how you square the circle.

PastorAIO:
Let me get you straight. When you say 'in this matter' I presume you are talking of this issue of being a Christian. Yes or no?

Secondly you are claiming that you do not need to receive the apostolic tradition in order to be a Christian. Is this what you're saying?

PastorAIO:
Let me get you straight. When you say 'in this matter' I presume you are talking of this issue of being a Christian. Yes or no?

PastorAIO:
Secondly you are claiming that you do not need to receive the apostolic tradition in order to be a Christian.
Is this what you're saying?

PastorAIO:
Olboy are you saying the bible is coherent or are you saying it is not coherent

MuttleyLaff:
He did, within the scope of OP
there was any cause to exhaustively refute OP

In 1 Samuel 16:17,
King Saul said to his servants:
''Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me''

In 1 Samuel 16:18,
a young man told King Saul about David, saying:
'I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre.
He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him''

In 1 Samuel 16:19,
King Saul then sent messengers to Jesse and said:
''Send me your son David, who is with the sheep''

In 1 Samuel 16:22,
King Saul proceeded to
send word to Jesse, saying, "Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him."

Recall that King Saul had never met or set eyes on Jesse before.
King Saul doesnt know Jesse from Adam,
no one-to-one with Jesse, no direct nor personal association with Jesse

King Saul had sent messengers and word only to Jesse and not had a face-face or knowlede of who Jesse really is

And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up?
surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be,
that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches,
and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel
(i.e. exempt his family from taxes in Israel)
- 1 Samuel 17:25

King Saul had to ask the 1 Samuel 17:55 ''whose son is this?'' question because of the promise(s) in 1 Samuel 17:25 above
It is necessary to identify who David really is, in order to pinpoint or know where and how to honor the pledge, especially the tax exemption one

MuttleyLaff:
You presume wrong.
Now take a minute to take a deep breathe or 5 deep breaths sef to clear your mind
and go again over your ''though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus'' comment
and then come again with what being a direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus has to do with the matter?

You brought up questioning the ancestry of the ''christians'' to any of the actual apostles of Jesus. Didnt you?

I am claimimng that direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus doesnt add or minus.
It is irrelevant to the matter you ranted on

MuttleyLaff:
I've answered this already. Calm down and stop getting over-excited over nothing

SMH. Can you for a second, stop bumbling about

Sometimes it is uncomplicated and easy to understand, sometimes it isnt

Sometimes it looks like things in the Bible dont add up,
and thats why untrained eyes and minds like JhyMedex's, post threads and OPs, like this one
Hoping to hit the jackpot by trying to catch the Bible out

MuttleyLaff:
You presume wrong.
Now take a minute to take a deep breathe or 5 deep breaths sef to clear your mind
and go again over your ''though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus'' comment
and then come again with what being a direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus has to do with the matter?

You brought up questioning the ancestry of the ''christians'' to any of the actual apostles of Jesus. Didnt you?

I am claimimng that direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus doesnt add or minus.
It is irrelevant to the matter you ranted on

PastorAIO:
What it has to do with the matter is that the op pointed out that Felixomor had a somewhat unpleasant manner of communicating
and I proposed my understanding of why not only him but a certain type of 'christian' (and I would include you in this group) have a tendency to be nasty when the bible or Christianity is debated.

I believe that it comes from the subconscious realisation that they (you included) lack legitimacy and so are trying to force it. So all one has to do is doubt your position and you see it as an outrageous and violent attack on your beliefs.
You must impose impose impose on others by force and invectives, not by rational arguments.
You cannot and will not engage in a rational manner examining arguments because you know that if you try it you will fail.

felixomor:
My brother thank u jare,
leave PastorAIO,
We know his ways.....
Its not today he started.

PastorAIO:
Actually he didn't refute anything.
At the point when the OP brought up the issue of chronology that is when Kondomatic disappeared

PastorAIO:
It seems that you missed it or it went over your head.
I'll take time to take you through it one more time very slowly

PastorAIO:
Chapter 16:
Can we presume that the events of chapter 16 happened before the events of chapter 17? I hope so

PastorAIO:
Chapter 16 - Saul meets David as the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite.

19Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.”
20And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul.
21And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer.
22And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight

So Saul according to this narrative was well acquainted with David BY SIGHT.
And he knew him to be Jesse's son

PastorAIO:
Now in Chapter 17 we hear a different story of how they met

PastorAIO:
Note that in chapter 16 the deity is mostly called Yahweh and only once is Elohim used towards the end

PastorAIO:
Starting from verse 12 we have what is obviously a new narrative because once again David is introduced as a character that we are meeting the first time:
12Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons.
In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years

If 16 and 17 are the same narrative then why introduce the character twice.
Obviously we've entered a new version here

PastorAIO:
In this version Saul does not know David.

Asking whose son is this of the boy that had 'found favour in his sight'
and to whose father he had sent messages that to let David remain with him.
That doesn't tally

PastorAIO:
Further more there is a proliferation of the use of the word Elohim for the deity

PastorAIO:
These 2 chapters sound like a stitching of two different narratives that don't tally with each other neatly.

MuttleyLaff:


As you can seen from the above underlined, unlike you going on a rant
my comment is on topic and related to refuting that the bible is not always a cogent narrative

MuttleyLaff:
The bible in some places is cogent, some places not cogent, another place silent and some other places deductive reasoning is employed

MuttleyLaff:
Watch yourself catch on and if not now, then sooner or later, do your own disappearing act too

I missed nothing and nothing went over my head
I actually addressed the chronology and more
and if your are a honorable man, it takes not much decency to admit this

I have previously mentioned to recall that King Saul had never met or set eyes on Jesse before.
King Saul doesnt know Jesse from Adam,
King Saul has had no one-to-one with Jesse, has had no direct association nor personal relationship with Jesse

King Saul had sent messengers and word, only, to Jesse alright
but he had no diddly squat face-face nor have any knowledge of who Jesse really is

King Saul in effect, had twice (i.e. messengers and word) sent to Jesse but never had sent for Jesse

King Saul didnt have to send for Jesse, because whatever King Saul wants or demands, King Saul haves or gets and Jesse has to be honky-donkey with it
Remember God's warning about subservience etcetera concerning the Israelite wanting to have an earthly king (i.e. 1 Samuel 8:11-18)

Were you expecting otherwise

So? So then, what?

Of course he knows David BY SIGHT and he knew him to be Jesse's son,
but does he know Jesse?
Does he personally know Jesse? Has he ever met Jesse?
Is King Saul acquainted with Jesse BY SIGHT?

If No, then I submit, it is a valid and reasonable King Saul question to ask
[b]It is a King Saul question begging for more details about David
[/b]King Saul obviously had an understandable reason for asking
Suddenly it is now a royal request, an official request investigation before a royal announcement

What Are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis?




To understand what scholars are talking about when they discuss the "J" or "E" or "P" Text of Genesis, it helps if we look closely at the first two chapters of Genesis*, which illustrate the subject. If we note some textual oddities first, it becomes easier to see how scholars formulated the ideas of the J, E, and P text.

To begin, when textual criticism and its systematic techniques for analyzing ancient manuscripts first became available in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even earlier in nonscholarly readings from the Renaissance) many readers noticed some odd details in the book we call Genesis. The first part of Genesis (1:1-2:3) differed from the later parts (Genesis 2:4-3:23) in interesting ways.



(1) First, each of these two sections of Genesis contains a different introduction for the creation story. Genesis 1:1 launches with the eloquent and imminently quotable, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The text reaches its conclusion in Genesis 2:1, where the narrative voice announces, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." Finis. The end. However, a second introduction appears in Genesis 2:4: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth . . . ." This initially seems a little redundant--at least on the surface of things. It seems to suggest a second creation story rather than one alone.

(2) The sections also differ in genre. One is written in poetry and the other is written in prose. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poetic text. It is metered, and probably the writer(s) intended for it to be sung as a hymnic chant. Rhyme is not all that important in Hebrew poetry, but Hebrew poems commonly use repetition, chiasmus, parallelism, and other rhetorical schemes and tropes. The Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism. To indicate these artistic qualities here, most NIV translations reproduce the text with hanging indentation to mark the poetic structure. Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said . . ." Each section ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the . . . day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in Genesis 1:31. This structure is high poetry in the best Hebrew style.


Contrast that with the material following. Genesis 2:4-3:23 is a non-poetic text. It is written in prose rather than in poetic lines--no meter. It does not use anaphora and parallelism the same way as that first section. To indicate the non-poetic nature of the text here, most NIV translations break the text into paragraphs. In terms of literary devices, the primary schemes and tropes are puns providing Hebrew folk etymologies. For instance, the narrative voice tells us that humanity (the Hebrew word adam) is called adam because God made him from adamah (ground or dust). The folk etymology provides an etiology explaining why the word for "woman" in Hebrew sounds so much like the Hebrew word for "man."

(3) Partly because of the difference between poetic devices and puns, and partly because of changes in diction, the tone of each passage is quite different. In the Genesis 1 passage, the diction is grandiose--designed to emphasize the majesty and the ordered nature of creation. In Genesis 2:4 and following, the tone becomes more familiar--more "folksy" and simple. We have moved away from the grandeur of the heavens where a disembodied Spirit of God hovers over the dark waters to a smaller setting--the muck and dirt of a single garden where we find God shaping men out of mud and where animals like the serpent can talk in the best beast fable tradition.

(4) Fourth, Genesis 1:1-2:3 treats the matter of creation differently than in Genesis 2:4 and following passages. In Genesis 1:27, God simultaneously creates multiple men and women on the sixth day, and he does so by speaking:


Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [Note the plural forms indicated by the object pronouns them in the top and bottom passages]

Contrast this bit with the section following Genesis 2:4, where we read a different creation account: "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Here, rather than an abstract and transcendental deity that speaks humanity effortlessly into existence, we have a God who works in the dirt and sculpts a single male human from the earth, rather than one who commands the land itself to produce living creatures. God, as described in this passage, uses a form of divine C.P.R. to instill his holy essence in humanity. To create woman, rather than making several different men simultaneously with several different women, God in Genesis 2:21-22 extracts a rib from Adam and fashions Eve out of this body part--but without breathing his essence directly into her.**

The acts of creation characterize God differently in each section, suggesting a different perspective or attitude towards God. In Genesis 1:-2:1, the Spirit of God need not exert himself to create the cosmos--only talk. He is an abstract, remote, omnipotent, and grandiose God hovering over the dark waters. Creation is effortless.

When we get to Genesis 2:2, however, we have a God that can grow tired and needs rest: "so on the seventh day, he rested from all his work." Rather than presenting the remote and omnipotent deity appearing in Genesis 1, this section of Genesis depicts a God who needs helpers like Adam to tend his creation. This depiction characterizes God in a more earthy, physical manner. Instead of speaking Eden into being, he plants the garden (Gen 2:. Additionally, he feels sympathy for lonely humanity (Hebrew adam), so he builds him a helper (Gen. 2:20-21). This God takes walks in the shade of the garden (but he only goes for walks when the day is cool, as Genesis 2:8 tells us--apparently to avoid the hot weather?). Furthermore, the text characterizes God as limited in perception rather than omniscient. When Adam and Eve hide from God, God can't seem to locate them, so God calls out to them to reveal themselves (Genesis 3:9). It's a striking difference in the narrative voice and in characterization.

(5) The sequence of what gets created when appears to be slightly different in each account. In Genesis 1:1-2:3, the sequence is as follows:

•Day One: Light or "Day" is separated from Darkness or "Night." We have an evening and a morning pass by (though the sun and moon are not yet created, nor solid ground to be a revolving earth).


•Day Two: An expanse or barrier (the firmament) is made to separate and hold apart the "waters above" and the "waters below." Another evening and another morning pass.


•Day Three: God separates the "waters below" from dry land. The "waters above" are still left in place somewhere above the firmament. On the same day, God commands the land to produce vegetation including both seed-bearing trees and plants (though the sun is not yet created for photosynthesis). Another evening and another morning passes.


•Day Four: The sun, the moon, and the stars are created. Another evening and another morning pass.


•Day Five: Aquatic creatures and birds are created. Another evening and another morning pass.


•Day Six: Terrestrial creatures are created--including livestock and "all the creatures that move along the ground." Then God makes humans. Another evening and another morning pass.


•Day Seven: God rests from his labors.



This account above from Genesis 1:1-2:3 contains elements very similar to Mesopotamian creation stories found in The Epic of Gilgamesh and other texts. It takes ideas of the firmament common in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmology, but it restructures the creation so that it is the work of a single deity rather than a combined effort of several gods in conflict. Like the Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation stories common in the 8th century BCE, it assumes a chaotic watery darkness as the primal state of the cosmos.

The sequence of creation and the details focused on in Genesis 2:4 onward differ significantly. Here's a chart adapted from page 90 of Gabel and Wheeler's The Bible as Literature to illustrate those differences:

Genesis 1-2:4a Genesis 2:4b-3:24
Creation is divided into days. No days or other periods of time are mentioned.
Creation has a cosmic scope. Creation has to do with the earth only.
Animals are created before man. Man created before animals.
Animals are part of a cosmic design (along with plants and everything else) Animals are created for a limited purpose: to keep man company or be "a helper"--though they turn out to be unsuitable for Adam, forcing God to make Eve instead.
Man is to rule the world. Man is to have charge of Eden only and, presumably, is never to leave it.
Woman is created simultaneously with man. Woman is created after (and from) the body of man.
No names are given to creatures. All creatures, including man and woman, are given names.
Only the deity speaks. Four speakers engage in dialogue, one of them an animal.
The deity makes a day of the week holy. The deity forbids eating the fruit of a tree.

According to scholars of Hebrew, the differences in each passage's diction sharply contrast in tone (Gabel 90). Even in translation, without looking at the original Hebrew, a modern reader can see significant differences in the narrative voice. The narrative voice in Genesis 1-2:3 is solemn, dignified, precise, and organized. He wastes no words. He is a poet of great skill. He focuses on God as transcendent. The narrative voice in Genesis 2:4 is also skillful, but in a different way. He focuses much more on down-to-earth details and appeals to vivid and concrete imagery. In anthropomorphic terms, he describes God doing a "hands-on" creation like a potter shaping clay. (The Hebrew word used, yatsar, is the same verb Hebrew uses for human potters molding or shaping a vessel, as Gabel and Wheeler note.) The narrative voice in the first half is ultimately concerned with demonstrating order over chaos; the text emphasizes that creation is a planned, orderly construction of God rather than the chaotic by-product of several gods squabbling as in other creation stories of the same time. The narrative voice in the second section is instead concerned with etiology--why is agricultural labor necessary? Or pain in childbirth? Why do snakes crawl on their bellies? Why do certain Hebrew words like ground and man sound alike?

These differences make it look initially like there could be two creation stories appearing in Genesis--possibly written by two (or more) different authors and later anthologized together by a single believer.

(6) Another factor distinguishing the two passages is the way each refers to God and the date of respective vocabularies. Some passages refer to God by calling God by the name Yahweh, but others refer to God using a plural noun as Elohim ("the Lords)"--sometimes while attaching singular verbs to this plural noun. In the 18th century, H. B. Witter and Jean Astruc suggested that these terms were not being used indiscriminately, but that the terms matched the contrasting creation stories in Genesis we have noted above (and other passages elsewhere in Genesis and the Hebrew Bible). The first creation story (Genesis 1-2:3) always and only refers to God as Elohim. The second creation story always refers to God as Yahweh, or Yahweh Elohim, but never as Elohim alone. These changes in diction consistently match the pattern of other distinctions mentioned above--again suggesting two different linguistic dates or at least two separate authors.

MuttleyLaff:
There is only one accuser of the brethren I know of,
and you've chosen exactly the same style of that person. What a coincidence!

I can only speak for myself, your accusations are unfounded
as it lacks any sound basis or occasion to pin on me,
So therefore they are totally false
and are another of the embittered rantings you infamously are renowned for

My brother, I give responses not because of PastorAIO or his ilks
but just to show you can't trust, at face value what they posts
and not to take as gospel the rantings that these people post here
Example will be the confused ones PastorAIO has been posting on this thread

PastorAIO:
I believe that you missed this so I'm posting it again

PastorAIO:
You said 'the bible is not always a cogent narrative'

PastorAIO:
What did you mean

PastorAIO:
how does that tally with everything else that you are saying

PastorAIO:
Olboy, take a minute to take a deep breathe or 5 deep breaths sef. Then clear your mind and come again

PastorAIO:
Are you saying the bible is coherent or are you saying it is not coherent.

PastorAIO:
Not only a rogue but a liar too!! lol.

PastorAIO:
Let us even skip that and get right to the bone

PastorAIO:
Saul was not begging for any 'more details'.

PastorAIO:
In chapter 16 before Saul even met David he was told that they are bringing the son of Jesse for him because he knows how to play music. Then David came. And Saul was so pleased with David that he wrote a letter to his father that he should let David remain with him.
David doesn't need to see Jesse face to face to know that there is someone called Jesse and David is Jesse's son.
All this is in Chapter 16.

Then in Chapter 17 Saul then sees David and asks, 'Whose son is this?' Does that make sense?
To ask whose son someone is after you've written letters to his father asking for him to remain with you?
If you cannot explain that then it is best to just shut up instead of embarrassing yourself with idiocy.

PastorAIO:
What brethren? Brethren of liars? Brethren of Crooks? Brethren of Jagudas?
I accuse anybody that lies and call him a liar, if you like cry. I accuse anybody that is making a false claim and tell him (and show him) that it is false. If you like cry.

PastorAIO:
My accusations are found on the basis that you are so twisted in your mind and morals that you will take a story where Saul writes a letter to David's dad Jesse, and you will claim that Saul would not know that Jesse is David's dad. This is just pitiful mendacity, and it comes from your father of lies.

MuttleyLaff:
I dont miss a trick
I already made myself clear,
and if you've had half an eye on and not being paying all your attention when reading my post(s) then that is your problem, not mine

Yes I did post that and posted more to it,
but it all were done as a response after you first brought up ''cogent''

You're not serious
The person wey defecate no dey remember,
but the pesin who wiped the shitter's bum and cleaned up the defecate, is called to explain and answer for the defecate

Refer to above

If you continue saying and using this line, you're going to wear it thin and out soon

Are you on your man period, when you finish it, go back over my posts to read my original and previous reply
I made my post on that clear enough and so I don't intend to repeat myself on it again to you.

MuttleyLaff:
It takes one to know one!! lol

Oya now, get right to the bone
but efrebor efrebor, you go wound ooo

Oh yeah, why not?
Why wasnt he begging for any 'more details'?
Dont tell me.
It's the errancy of the bible. He-he-he, kikiki ki
I no wan laugh die

It makes sense die
but no surprises, as no amount of explanation will ever make sense to a sugar rush skeptic like you bent on going on a ranting rage spree

MuttleyLaff:
Well done, you're perfecting the art

King Saul knows David by sight.
King Saul knows David by name.
but somehow King Saul at that instance now, no more knows David anymore by his new appearance
King Saul has never met David's father personally so knows not whose son David really is
He knows David's father by name but he doesnt know David's father by sight
Technically speaking and in actual fact, King Saul doesnt know whose son David really is

''Whose son is the youth'' is equivalent in seriousness to like when speaking in the local parlance with
''Tani baba omode yi, gangan nile yi, paapaa?''

This post will set you off on another boisterous sugar high trip and give you something to rant on about. Enjoy. Kikiki ki

Bottom line is that, King Saul has his ''many'' reasons for asking that question
but instead of owing up to your inadequacies,
you are blinded with ranting rage and terribly unable to see the forest for the trees
Tut-tut-tut

JhyMedex:

I really Don't like you that much..
I've seen how you respond and tackle issues on this forum..
And it's just despicable and unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Doctor ...

I'll appreciate if you let the intelligent people speak...
Thanks..

watery dog poo

PastorAIO:
This man has given up even trying to make sense. How pitiful!!

PastorAIO:
If you like squirm like a worm till darkness that you hope for comes to your rescue. That won't change anything.
Saul knew who David's father was in chapter 16, even writing letters to him regarding David. By chapter 17 after David is introduced in verse 12 as if for the first time Saul does not know who his father was again. By face or not by face doesn't matter but is just another squirming tactic of yours. At the end of the chapter David told him 'I'm jesse's son your servant'. He didn't show Saul a photograph so he can know him by sight. He told him the name which is the name that he knew already on chapter 16.
Many Christian scholars know these things. That is true bible scholars, not mushroom penterascal baseless 'christians' as yourself

otemdomino:


That's just one out of a thousand Bible contradiction. Pls keep reading and keep discovering. You'll soon be free.

JhyMedex:

4 real?.. what you mean a thousand?..

JhyMedex:

Yeah Pastor in the house..
how about your explanation Sire?..

MuttleyLaff:
You wouldn't recognise sense even if it perched on your nose

Oro na dun, O fe ke.
Go lick your bruise somewhere else

Smallville10:
the problem with u people is dat u just see sometin and u come and post rubbish without first sittin down to verify. Pls read 1samuel 17 v 55-58... Saul meets so many people as a king, u dont expect him to know everyone or remember them... The question he asked was a question to verify his doubt, thats why he asked whose son is dat? If u see verse 58, david said, i am d son of "your" servant Jesse... Pls go back and understand ur bible well.
.
Dont allow anyone decieve u o

PastorAIO:
Hahahah! Satan truly is an imitator of god.
Continue parroting everything you hear, s'o gbo.

PastorAIO:
This doesn't add up. So because he meets so many people
as a king he forgot that the boy he delighted in so much that he wrote a letter to his father asking him if he could keep the boy,
he then forgot whose son the boy was. haba!!

PastorAIO:
Biblians really need to add so much to the bible in order to make it say what they want which definitely isn't what the bible is saying

PastorAIO:
The bible never said that Saul meets so many people and so forgot.
That is how the other day someone said that because in his village lineage is considered patrilineal therefore it is impossible for jews to considered Jewishness to be passed down through the mother. What has his village custom got to do with Jewish customs?

PastorAIO:
I believe that for most Africans the bible is an obsolete book because they cannot even grasp the cultural contexts in which it was written