NewStats: 3,265,353 , 8,186,485 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 03:34 PM 5s362h

Whether it's good or bad is not d question here Nwokem.

I was only playing by his rules; he requested for a scripture for the guy to back up his claims. I was simply also doing same.

Purrrrr!

bixton:



Is igbo smoking/cocaine sniffing good ?

James 4.17 - Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

A wife is not a slave in the technical but the rise of feminism is based on the premise that women are subservient to men.

If a man wants....according to the Bible, she must not deny him. Did you not read that men are masters according to Jewish law and till today, they still practice that. My argument for women taking on men's last name is to justify it by making women slaves. It is important to know that the hierarchy in the Bible places men above women...and similarly so in most religion. So if a woman decides she won't do the will of the husband, what does the Bible say? This may touch nerves, but we can't deny the Word.

Your “husband,” your master, used to be the Jewish law. Romans 7:4.

LordReed:


Hold up. You are using slavery as an argument for why a wife should take her husband's name? Do you not see how problematic your argument is? Is the wife a slave? Why would you even attempt to use slavery to your argument? Holy Andromeda!

Dvea:



There is nothing unclear about my point. But I'll accord you your choice and stick to biblical claims

The age you quoted was specifically a foretelling of the punishment isreal was going to face for thier disobedience. Men will die in war and women will have no husband's to marry. It had nothing to do with women taking their husband's name. The Good News Bible doesn't even translate it as just let us take your name. It translates it as let's just call you our husband. And as I stated when you read the Bible you cannot just pick and choose ages that suit you. The Bible is a history book and something led to and away from something. Isaiah 4 had nothing to do with taking a man's name or that there is a scarcity of men or that a good wife takes a man's name. There is nothing about that in the Bible. Isaiah was a prophet who condemned the peoples evil and foretold the fall and rise of the isrealities. Particularly chapter 4 is a continuation of chapter 3 not a standalone story. And chapter 3 spoke of God's punishment on the men of Isreal and generally the people. Chapter 3 is about the chaos God will bring on them. The sentence you so conveniently quoted began on chapter 3 and was a warning to the evil ways of the women and what punishment God was going to met on them. If the men die in war then of course there will be none to marry them. Chapter 4 verse 2 till then end was then a restoration promise from God.

All of these things already happened to isreal they already experienced that. The prophesy came through and went on. So why are you holding onto that as a fact that the Bible says a woman needs to take her husband's name when the entire story was about something completely different and in a situation of chaos for the isrealities?

Again GNB doesn't even translate it as taking his name. It simply says let's call you husband. Going to the age I quoted 2nd Samuel 11: 3 she was first referred to by her father's name before her husband. In today's world that would be keeping your fathers name and then adding on your husband's. If taking the man's name was so important then they would have simply referred to her as the wife of...

There is no Biblical claims for the pastors point and simply he could have simply said he doesn't think it's right not trying to twist the Bible to fit thier own opinion.

All you have said is straightforward tra.sh

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
4 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

You people can argue stupidly till the end of time, but here is Scripture to back the point. And this is also prophetic because it is for the future too,

If you agree to be a man's wife, you have agreed to bear his name, and to submit to him in all things. If he is a woke gentleman, you can ask him and he can decide to let you keep your father's name. But if he says you will bear his name, then you will bear his name.

Antichristian2:


A foolish question requires a similar answer!

Foolish people think questions beyond their reasoning capacity are foolish

LordIsaac:

Submit to your husband validates it.

So when Paul said christians should "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21), it means all Christians should start changing their names to other christians' names? I don't get your point.

nans24:


So no scripture, yet you said its scriptural?

It is scriptural but you cannot provide just ONE.

okay o.

You know, it's gotta be scriptural since "daddy" said it. You'd be shocked the kinda "christians" you have these days.

Agbegbaorogboye:

Foolish people think questions beyond their reasoning capacity are foolish

A fool may think himself wise but can only delude himself in his folly.

Truly it's one of the greatest folly to ask a Muslim if "something" is in the Qur'an. It even shows crass ignorance of the highest magnitude!

Maximus692:
At birth women bears their father's name so when they make a vow to God only their father can break such vow and God will forgive them because their owner not them ends the vow.
God later said if the woman is married her vows can also be broken by her husband. Numbers 30:3-8

The question:

If she bears her father's name at birth and he has the right to break her vows whose name should she bear now that she's MARRIED and has BECOME ONE {Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6} with someone else who also has the right to break her vows?

And seven women will grab hold of one man in that day, saying: “We will eat our own bread And wear our own clothing; Only let us be called by your name To take away our disgrace.” Isaiah 4:1

Please why should women among God's people feel it's not proper to keep their father's name but wish to be called by the name of their husbands?

Antichristian2:


A fool may think himself wise but can only delude himself in his folly.

Truly it's one of the greatest folly to ask a Muslim if "something" is in the Qur'an. It even shows crass ignorance of the highest magnitude!

It is not folly to ask a Muslim if something is in the Quran. Rather, it is folly for a self-professed Muslim to refer one to google when asked about the quran. Google was made by a kafir. And here you are referencing google in matters of your religion
It is folly to be so shameless

MrPresident1:


All you have said is straightforward tra.sh

That you cannot disprove. And yet again you confirm that people like you choose to pick and choose Bible verses that fit your opinion. The Bible is not your tool to back up your one-sided view. And until you change you will continue to be the ride on pastor type who can be guided into anything.

Even scrap the disproving point, my problem with people like you is, you know the truth when you see it, but your ego and opinion is so big that you turn away and get angry. Half these pastors know nothing about theology or the Bible. They are not even Bible scholars and that's why you people like them. They can pick and choose a point and twist and bend it and then you people will be happy with yoursleves. Then others will claim the Bible is two mouthed. I can bet you have never even read the whole Isaiah on your own, you just found that one verse and have clung to it. Neither have you read the Bible as a whole to know the story. All you people do is pick and choose and when someone calls you out you get angry rather than accepting your falsehood.

Until Christians begin to read the Bible as a whole and not part and pieces, you'll keep falling for personal opinion preaching and at this point, it serves you all right when pastors swindle you. On this matter of Isaiah 4, I hope you'll have the decency now that you know the truth to never mention it again as a biblical backing for your own personal opinion.

MasterTeeUSA:
A wife is not a slave in the technical but the rise of feminism is based on the premise that women are subservient to men.

If a man wants....according to the Bible, she must not deny him. Did you not read that men are masters according to Jewish law and till today, they still practice that. My argument for women taking on men's last name is to justify it by making women slaves. It is important to know that the hierarchy in the Bible places men above women...and similarly so in most religion. So if a woman decides she won't do the will of the husband, what does the Bible say? This may touch nerves, but we can't deny the Word.

Your “husband,” your master, used to be the Jewish law. Romans 7:4.

By Orion's Beard, the way some people reason is frightening.

When the world was told that the Earth revolves around the Sun, they saw it as a threat as well...people were burnt and killed for blasphemy. You should never see reasoning as frightening. You should counter arguments with superior arguments. We are all learners afterall, and no one has monopoly of knowledge.

LordReed:


By Orion's Beard, the way some people reason is frightening.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

So wives are subjects to their husbands in EVERYTHING

LordReed:


By Orion's Beard, the way some people reason is frightening.

MasterTeeUSA:
When the world was told that the Earth revolves around the Sun, they saw it as a threat as well...people were burnt and killed for blasphemy. You should never see reasoning as frightening. You should counter arguments with superior arguments. We are all learners afterall, and no one has monopoly of knowledge.

Yu have a very weird way of reasoning. First, you use slavery to wives taking their husbands name. Now you point out how people who merely brought forth scientific evidence that was contrary to existing beliefs were killed. While discussing a subject I am somewhat opposed to and you say I should not be frightened.

I think I am very justified in being frightened because it seems you'd be very comfortable harming me for have a differing opinion from you.

MasterTeeUSA:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

So wives are subjects to their husbands in EVERYTHING

Yeah, like a slave right. SMH.

I cant o. Just focus on the word...submission.

LordReed:


Yu have a very weird way of reasoning. First, you use slavery to wives taking their husbands name. Now you point out how people who merely brought forth scientific evidence that was contrary to existing beliefs were killed. While discussing a subject I am somewhat opposed to and you say I should not be frightened.

I think I am very justified in being frightened because it seems you'd be very comfortable harming me for have a differing opinion from you.

The word "subject" is synonymous with Master-Slave. That does not mean that wives are technically slaves, but they lose the freedom of independence according to this ...Husbands are supposed to also Love their wives. Think of Kings and Subjects...and the correlation with what I wrote. You are thinking of slaves in of those in chains...the extreme way of slavery is what is frightening you by drawing the comparison.

LordReed:


Yeah, like a slave right. SMH.

Agbegbaorogboye:


It is not folly to ask a Muslim if something is in the Quran. Rather, it is folly for a self-professed Muslim to refer one to google when asked about the quran. Google was made by a kafir. And here you are referencing google in matters of your religion
It is folly to be so shameless

It is folly. I can't ask you if something exists in the gospel and not the new testament or the Bible!

Ask Google is the foolish answer you deserve!

Antichristian2:


It is folly. I can't ask you if something exists in the gospel and not the new testament or the Bible!

Ask Google is the foolish answer you deserve!

I'm glad we can both agree you gave a foolish answer

The next level of foolishness is the meaningless drivel you conjured above

Is Qur'an a subset of Islam or otherwise. The answer exposes how much wisdom you lack

Dvea:


That you cannot disprove. And yet again you confirm that people like you choose to pick and choose Bible verses that fit your opinion. The Bible is not your tool to back up your one-sided view. And until you change you will continue to be the ride on pastor type who can be guided into anything.

Even scrap the disproving point, my problem with people like you is, you know the truth when you see it, but your ego and opinion is so big that you turn away and get angry. Half these pastors know nothing about theology or the Bible. They are not even Bible scholars and that's why you people like them. They can pick and choose a point and twist and bend it and then you people will be happy with yoursleves. Then others will claim the Bible is two mouthed. I can bet you have never even read the whole Isaiah on your own, you just found that one verse and have clung to it. Neither have you read the Bible as a whole to know the story. All you people do is pick and choose and when someone calls you out you get angry rather than accepting your falsehood.

Until Christians begin to read the Bible as a whole and not part and pieces, you'll keep falling for personal opinion preaching and at this point, it serves you all right when pastors swindle you. On this matter of Isaiah 4, I hope you'll have the decency now that you know the truth to never mention it again as a biblical backing for your own personal opinion.

Isaiah 4:1 is the future, four women will hold on to one man a will please to bear his name, whennJesus, the Branch, becomes King.

This is what the verse says:

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

On what day is that? Verse 2
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

After the cleansing of Israel: verse 4
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

On that day when four women will hold one man, the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious

MrPresident1:


Isaiah 4:1 is the future, four women will hold on to one man a will please to bear his name, whennJesus, the Branch, becomes King.

This is what the verse says:

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

On what day is that? Verse 2
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

After the cleansing of Israel: verse 4
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

On that day when four women will hold one man, the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious

Read from Chapter 1 till the end of Chapter 5. Because if I ask you to read the entire Isaiah you will say you can't. Isaiah 4 is a spill off of Chapter 3, start from there.

Again you conveniently ignored Chapter 3 that speaks of the punishment of war when men will be killed in battle and then women will have no men to marry and out of societal shame will be willing to marry 1 man. I told you the Bibile is a history book, you must read the whole thing to prove your point. But instead you want to dwell on the second half of the story.

Now let's break down Chapter 4 ver 1 to 6

Vers 1 - a continuation of the punishment the women of Jerusalem will face for also sinning which in turn was a continuation of the chaos in Jerusalem and the judgement God will bring to all his people for sinning. We have established this.

Vers 2 - is a message if hope saying a time is coming when the Lord will make every plant and tree in the land grow large and beautiful. All those who survive will take delight and pride in the crops that the land produce. That is s promise that after the war and exile the people will come back to their land. Again solidifying that chapter 3 and 4 are a prophesy that have come and gone, the fall and rise of isreal before even Christ.

Ver 3 - everyone left in Jerusalem will be called holy. I don't even need to explain this.

Ver 4 - By His power the Lord will judge and purify the nation and wash away the guilt of Jerusalem and the blood they have shed. Again proving my claim that this was about the sins they were committing then.

Vers 5 and 6 - are both a promise of God returning to dwell with his people snd protect them like he did with their ancestors.

How then can you conclude that this age is for this era or that soon men will be so few that women will beg to marry them. We have already established that statement - let us take your name - in ver 1 is a translation variation and not all Bibles say the same thing. GNB says and let us call you our husband. That's all. I also gave you proof that in those days the norm was mostly to bare both your fathers and your husband's name as in the case of Bathsheba. Why then are you insisting that taking your husband's name is biblical. There is nothing biblical about it. Its simply cultural and every culture has their own standard. Just say it's not cultural in West Africa and that would be fine not trying to force the Bible to your claim.

Again read the Bible in whole. Read all of Isaiah and you'll not be having this erroneous opinions.
Isaiah was a prophet who spoke of the punishment the people of isreal will be given for their sin - Chapter 1 to 39. Chapter 40 to 55 was about comfort and hope for restoration some of which was the promise of Jesus's, heaven, and salvation. Chapter 56 till the end was mostly about the glory of God and the reward the holy will recieve.

MrPresident1:


Isaiah 4:1 is the future, four women will hold on to one man a will please to bear his name, whennJesus, the Branch, becomes King.

This is what the verse says:

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

On what day is that? Verse 2
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

After the cleansing of Israel: verse 4
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

On that day when four women will hold one man, the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious

I'm reading your KJV translation and it's vastly different. Fundermentally the same point but completely different wordings.

Your vers 4 mentions the daughters of zion or daughters of Jerusalem. Mine has no mention of daughters at all. It doesn't even mention women from ver 2 to 6.

This is why it's important to read as a whole and not verse by verse because wordings change and presentations are very different from Bible to Bible. What is consistent is the story and the events and the situation taking place at every point.

Agbegbaorogboye:

I'm glad we can both agree you gave a foolish answer

The next level of foolishness is the meaningless drivel you conjured above

Is Qur'an a subset of Islam or otherwise. The answer exposes how much wisdom you lack

Are the gospels a subset of the Christian scriptures or not?

Is it appropriate to separate the gospel from the new testament or from the entire Bible?

Like Jesus is never anywhere except in the gospels!

NO WIFE IN THE CONCORDANCE. IT IS A PARTNER SWEET TO MEET. IT IS A CONTRACT OF UTMOST GOOD FAITH. MANY THANKS TO THE KJV BIBLE AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

Like Jesus is never anywhere except in the gospels. That is why the gospels is the NEW TESTAMENT.
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, HE WAS THE MESSIAH, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE STAFF OF MOSES.

Antichristian2:


Are the gospels a subset of the Christian scriptures or not?

Is it appropriate to separate the gospel from the new testament or from the entire Bible?

Like Jesus is never anywhere except in the gospels!

This is a daft way to reason I must tell you

The question was simple and straightforward

The shenanigans that followed betrayed a lack of common sense

There is no relationship between your silly questions and the points I raised

Just blowing empty hot air like a terrorist

Dvea:


I'm reading your KJV translation and it's vastly different. Fundermentally the same point but completely different wordings.

Your vers 4 mentions the daughters of zion or daughters of Jerusalem. Mine has no mention of daughters at all. It doesn't even mention women from ver 2 to 6.

This is why it's important to read as a whole and not verse by verse because wordings change and presentations are very different from Bible to Bible. What is consistent is the story and the events and the situation taking place at every point.

Okkk, you are using GNB bible abi? Or what version are you using? Or NWT?

Dvea:



Read from Chapter 1 till the end of Chapter 5. Because if I ask you to read the entire Isaiah you will say you can't. Isaiah 4 is a spill off of Chapter 3, start from there.

Again you conveniently ignored Chapter 3 that speaks of the punishment of war when men will be killed in battle and then women will have no men to marry and out of societal shame will be willing to marry 1 man. I told you the Bibile is a history book, you must read the whole thing to prove your point. But instead you want to dwell on the second half of the story.

Now let's break down Chapter 4 ver 1 to 6

Vers 1 - a continuation of the punishment the women of Jerusalem will face for also sinning which in turn was a continuation of the chaos in Jerusalem and the judgement God will bring to all his people for sinning. We have established this.

Vers 2 - is a message if hope saying a time is coming when the Lord will make every plant and tree in the land grow large and beautiful. All those who survive will take delight and pride in the crops that the land produce. That is s promise that after the war and exile the people will come back to their land. Again solidifying that chapter 3 and 4 are a prophesy that have come and gone, the fall and rise of isreal before even Christ.

Ver 3 - everyone left in Jerusalem will be called holy. I don't even need to explain this.

Ver 4 - By His power the Lord will judge and purify the nation and wash away the guilt of Jerusalem and the blood they have shed. Again proving my claim that this was about the sins they were committing then.

Vers 5 and 6 - are both a promise of God returning to dwell with his people snd protect them like he did with their ancestors.

How then can you conclude that this age is for this era or that soon men will be so few that women will beg to marry them. We have already established that statement - let us take your name - in ver 1 is a translation variation and not all Bibles say the same thing. GNB says and let us call you our husband. That's all. I also gave you proof that in those days the norm was mostly to bare both your fathers and your husband's name as in the case of Bathsheba. Why then are you insisting that taking your husband's name is biblical. There is nothing biblical about it. Its simply cultural and every culture has their own standard. Just say it's not cultural in West Africa and that would be fine not trying to force the Bible to your claim.

Again read the Bible in whole. Read all of Isaiah and you'll not be having this erroneous opinions.
Isaiah was a prophet who spoke of the punishment the people of isreal will be given for their sin - Chapter 1 to 39. Chapter 40 to 55 was about comfort and hope for restoration some of which was the promise of Jesus's, heaven, and salvation. Chapter 56 till the end was mostly about the glory of God and the reward the holy will recieve.

Isaiah 4:1 is the future when David becomes King over Israel once again, when the Branch of the LORD is glorious again, when Jerusalem is taken from the Gentiles Luke 21:24, and it proclaims blessed is he who comes in the way of the LORD Matthew 23:39.

When Michael stands up for his people Daniel 12:1, when the people who's names are not in the book have been judged, then Isaiah 4:1 will come to . This is the future.

MasterTeeUSA:
The word "subject" is synonymous with Master-Slave. That does not mean that wives are technically slaves, but they lose the freedom of independence according to this ...Husbands are supposed to also Love their wives. Think of Kings and Subjects...and the correlation with what I wrote. You are thinking of slaves in of those in chains...the extreme way of slavery is what is frightening you by drawing the comparison.

It was YOU who drew that comparison not me.

MasterTeeUSA:
I cant o. Just focus on the word...submission.

Back to my question then. So, whoever you submit to you have to change your name to theirs?

If that is what he wants, yes you must. If you cannot do what he wants...don't marry him. It is very simple. A lady can choose to remain single

LordReed:


Back to my question then. So, whoever you submit to you have to change your name to theirs?