₦airaland Forum

I don't understand you niyoma. For crying out loud, you're asking what relationship there is between 1000 denomination and inflation! And you call that 'ignorance' even though you sort of went in a roundabout way to answer your own query with another ignorance: "I mean what can N1000 buy nowadays to be realistic?"

In a very unstable economy such as Nigeria's, the last thing to do is to introduce a higher denomination of her money currency. That is a desperate move that only reveals the greed of illiterate politicians (especially those begging for a 'third term'). If some are persuaded that a N1 000 notebill in the capital market at this time is good blood in the arteries of our economy, then wait until they introduce a N100 000 bill - afterall, the argument has all too often been 'it will make cash flow easier'. Rubbish.

The twin evils of corruption and inflation are not perculiar to the Nigeria case. However, one cannot completely divorce the connection between inflation and denomination of currency, and the recent example of Zimbabwe's inflation (9 June 2006 BBC report) should make us pay closer attention to this matter and understand that the introduction of the N1000 bill at this time is really bad blood. Sample this excerpt from the BBC link above:

"Last week the Reserve Bank issued a new 100,000 Zimbabwean dollar note (equivalent to just under $1), to accommodate rocketing prices." However, the reality is: "Inflation will continue to climb 'as long as the factors driving it are not addressed,' said Daniel Ndhela, an independent economic analyst."

Astute political leaders who understand the rubrics of a nation's economy are not seen desperately introducing higher denominations of their currencies, especially in the wake of political, social and economic instabilities. The factors driving inflation in Nigeria have not been addressed, and the entry of the N1000 spells further injury to our national psyche and economic acumen. What was really the driving force behind the new denomination- have we really thought about that? How many years ago were Nigerians greeted with the N200 and N500 denominations (and we are yet to fully recover from those)? Is that how any sensible country 'introduces' new currencies into their capital markets??

Anyway, I don't see what's wrong in having (deliberately?) left out the naira (N) sign in the new note. The fledging economies of the West and Europe that we're trying to imitate don't have their currency signs printed next to the figure-values of their notes, as long as the value of the currency is spelt out somewhere on the note. Anyone care about that could sample them in the links below:

United States of America 100 Dollar Bill: Front - http://www.banknotes.com/US384.JPG
                                                              Back - http://www.banknotes.com/US384R.JPG

Swedish SEK 500 (Five Hundred Swedish Kronor): http://www.banknotes.com/SE65.JPG  
                          (Fifty Swedish Kronor - Old Note): http://www.banknotes.com/SE53.JPG  

Perhaps, the most absurd design of currency bill I've seen to date is the 1918 West African Currency Board of One Shilling (Lagos, 30th November, 1918). How could a 'One Shilling' bill be "legal tender for the payment of any amount"?? (click and see it here!).

What is worrisome is that these higher denominations are threatening to phase out the smaller denominations in Nigeria; whereas, the economies we're trying to imitate retain their smaller currency denominations.

Darling, you remember all the ships we boarded to get here?

There was friend[b]ship[/b]. . .

           then relation[b]ship[/b]. . .

                        next was court[b]ship[/b]. . .

                                      we moved a bit closer with fellow[b]ship[/b]. . .

                                                        after your graduation, we celebrated your houseman[b]ship[/b]. . .

                                                                        I put a ring on your finger so it won't be hard to find you: owner[b]ship[/b]. . .

Now we're here: I've enjoyed all these trips, and if I have to do them again, trust me - no one will be travelling with me except you:
because you make partner[b]ship[/b] so very worth every inch of the way! 

Aristotle said: 'Give me a place to stand and I'll move the world!'

Sweetheart, give me your love and I'll move Aristotle!

Oga LAHLAXZA,

There's no need to shout in capital letters. The Qur'an confirms the hate Muhammad had for Christians and Jews, and quite often Muslims would come back with the weak excuse that 'your religion is yours and my religion is mine.' Muhammad respected no other religion, and we must query the authenticity of his prophethood. It is highly childish and irresponsible indeed for any Muslim to expect that people should keep quiet and not ask questions about the activities of the self-declared Quraish "prophet" called Muhammad.

He claimed to have brought a religion from the same God that confirmed and revealed the 'Gospel' to Jesus - we must examine that claim.

He claimed to have received a lot of revelation from that same God about his activities, especially his connections with women - we should equally examine them.

He claimed to have received the quintessential accolade of 'the seal of the Prophets' from that same God - another matter to be examined.

He claimed that people should say a prayer (p.b.u.h.) at every mention of his name - a prayer that even Islamic scholars have had to admit reveals more than most Muslims are willing to admit: a case to be examined.

There are quite a handful of very serious matters about life and career of the self-declared Quraish prophet that must be examined, especially those dealing with the morality and deportment suited to such a 'holy' calling. Apart from the hate he clearly expressed towards people who didn't square with him, it is pertinent to examine the question of whether or not Muhammad was consistent in the pursuit of his career as a prophet. These matters cannot just be swept under the carpet.

Lol, Seun. I see that now and others could make inputs to the topic. The thing is that there are loads of other questions that one may ask about what gives credibility to, or otherwise questions the authenticity of, the Prophethood of Muhammad.

@OlaAjia,

OlaAjia:
@Jalal, your question is very correct but I must say that the misunderstanding of those few Christians concerning Allah is a choice they make intentionally.

In just the same way that Muslims who refuse to understand God in the Bible is a choice they intentionally make.

A few things you just have to think through and see if this assertion of the intentional choice of Muslims to misunderstand the true God is misplaced. Long before Muhammad was born, the Gospels have been in circulation with the very words declaring Jesus as the Son of God. Please prove me wrong on that by showing me how that "Son of God" as referring to Jesus Christ was a later addition, alteration or altercation to the Bible after Muhammad established Islam. A few texts for your consideration:

Matt. 14:33 - And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matt. 16:16 - And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 27:43 - He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Mark 1:1 - The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Mar 14:61-62 - But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Luke 1:35 - And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.

John 10:36 - say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

John 19:7 - The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Notice that the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) had abundantly stated that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - even quoting His own statement where He asserted it so by Himself. Again, notice that these Gospel accounts were already in circulation long before Muhammad was born. Now, there are a few pertinent questions to ask, and please give unprejudiced answers where you can:

Question 1:
   # since the Gospel accounts that were in circulation long before Muhammad was born (and even during his time) were
    all stating that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, what 'Gospel' did Muhammad assert in the Qur'an that Allah sent down
    to Jesus? See Sura 003:003 --

     "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down
      the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of
      judgment between right and wrong)." - Yusuf Ali.

    "He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even
     as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." - Pickthal.

Here, it is clear that Allah is purporting to have sent down, confirmed, and revealed the Gospel of Jesus - and these Gospels have always declared from the very start that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If anyone was changing anything in the Gospel, it is Muhammad and Allah; not Christians.

Question 2:
   # If you really believe that the Bible has been changed as Muhammad charged, can you please state what were changed
    from what to what? Did the Bible in Muhammad's day any different from the one we read today? Or, did the Bible not say
    that Jesus Christ was the Son of God at the time of Muhammad?

If you haven't taken the time to look into this matter and are not willing to do so, then it is obvious that it is Muslims like you who have intentionally chosen to ignore the unsubstantiated claims of the Qur'an against the Bible; and have rather chosen to follow the dogma of a man who assumed prophethood without having been sent by the God he claims sent down, confirmed and revealed the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

@Softee,

The age of Aisha is debatable among Muslims themselves and has been attempted in another thread - Da Vinci Code: A Lesson To Muslims. There ajia23 has something to say about that.

I'm sorry to cut in and throw in this observation.

In many European countries, the easiest way to spell 'N.I.G.E.R.I.A.' is 419 - I know this because I travel a lot. A reported experience in Sweden made me re-think tho whole question of who really is the dupe: the scammer or the willing victim?

Scenario 1.

A bogus email from a 'popular' or 'well-known' official in a '[b]C[/b]restal [b]B[/b]ank [b]I[/b]nternational PLC' was sent to a Swedish guy. The mold was the same: a large sum of money was lying in a deposit account in the said bank to the tune of $ ¤¤¤, ¤¤¤, ¤¤¤ (millions of US dollars). The 'official' seeks a foreign partner with high business discretion for the transfer of the funds which was part of the loot from Abacha's family. If this Swedish partner was willing to play ball, his cut would be 10% of the transfer. All that was required was that he indicated his willingness, and had a 'functional' account that the money could be transferred into.

Swedish guy (SvG) makes a few calls to his proposer with the numbers provided in the email. He delays, and after a while he decides to try it out. He further asks a few questions to satisfy his curiosity, and then tries to make his move to follow instructions. Proposer from 'Crestal Bank International PLC' asks if he could confirm SvG's foreign account by transfering some money into it, to which the latter consented. Then $5, 000.00 (Five thousand US dollars) was transferred - and SvG was overjoyed! It just was unbelievable! Pronto, he sent details of his account to his CBI PLC proposer, who promptly acknowledged receipt. Two days later, another $7,000.00 (seven thousand US dollars) was wired into SvG's account, and by this time SvG's trust had been completely bought over. He was offered the suggestion of visiting his proposer in Nigeria for more detailed and 'careful' instruction on the 'transfer' of the remaining funds - all expenses paid, no questions asked. SvG grabbed the offer.

Fast forward.

All seemed to go well, and a forthnight later SvG got a priority mail (as emailing was 'too sensitive for such transactions at this time'), stating that the funds would be 'wired' in batches: first, 35%; then 45%; and another 15%; and that last 5% to another account that he might provide. He did - his wife's business account.

Another two weeks passed. No phone calls, no priority mails, no nothing. Perhaps now, the transfer has 'matured', so SvG went over to see. Both accounts had just SEK67,700 (sixty seven thousand, seven hundred swedish krona, or about $6,780 - six thousand seven hundred and eighty US dollars at the time) left! Then he blew his sirens and whimpered - he'd been duped to the equivalent of $115, 000.00 (one hundred and fifteen thousand USD). Attempts to trace the destination of the transfer revealed that it was not to the Crestal-Bank-International-PLC Nigerian address - it was done right there in Sweden!

Now my question is: who was the crook - the "Crestal Bank International PLC" scammer or the SvG willing victim??

Oh, it was reported that SvG did try to 'check out' if Crestal Bank Int'l PLC really existed - by calling the phone numbers the scammer left him! He was indeed 'careful' - by not initially notifying the police before grabbing the 'opportunity' to be rich. He was really a shrewd 'businessman' who was all too willing to help loot Nigeria's stolen wealth as long as Abacha was dead and gone.

And only when 'kasala' happens do we read it in the news!! That's when you see European and Western media with headlines screaming: "Another victim to the notorious Nigerian 419 scam!" Nobody stops a while to see the European "victim" as equally criminally minded as was the scammer. Abeg, make I hear word. The so-called "victim" deserves to be locked up in jail!!

Certainly there are unsuspecting victims we could sympathise with; but when the issues involved indicate that the European "victim" was willing to grab the offer to be "rich" from stolen wealth, he or she should not be seen as a "victim" but as a criminal!

ajia23:
In Islam however, we are expected to bless the name of any prophet of God by saying may the peace and blessings of God be on them.

And why is that so?

Obfuscate what issues? I'm waiting for "anybody" to read your most, review what I stated earlier, then "discover" whatever you said I was suggesting. In any case, I'm holding you to your words and will subsequently post some of the crimes committed by Muhammad - then let's see you prove true to your words and denounce him.

@dominobaby,

How bodi? Na wa. Summer no gree me see road, lol. I'm very often on this segment of Nairaland because it's the easiest to deal with the heat. Anyhow, I'll repent and try to spread myself spatially in other threads. Hope u're keeping cool.

What Stereotypes Do Muslims and Christians Hold About One Another?

In our day Muslims and Christians hold concepts about their different faiths and adherents that are either nowhere to be found in the real practice of their faiths, or are otherwise misunderstood. A few of these are:

Muslim Stereotypes of Christianity and Christians -

# Christians believe in three Gods

# Christianity is synonymous with the Evils of The West - porn, drugs, divorce, etc.

# Christians hate Muslims everywhere

Christian Stereotypes of Islam and Muslims -

# All Muslims are radicals

# Islam is a violent religion by default

# Muslims are dogmatists and intolerant.

Certainly, there are more to add to the list - and we can classify them as either politically motivated, religiously instigated, or humanistically ridiculous, etc. The issue here is that this thread seeks to offer the opportunity to adherents of both faiths - (Christians and Muslims; as well as others who hold any stereotypes of these faiths) - to correct these misconceptions and provide well-reasoned discussions to counter them. For example, non-Muslims (whether Christians, atheists or people of other faiths) many times see Islam as synonymous with violence, and most Muslims have had a hard time trying to convince the world that Islam by the books is not violent but rather is a 'religion of peace.' On the other hand, non-Christians have often seen Christianity as responsible for some social ills like sexual immorality, scandals and financial fraud in 'high places!' How do Christians plead to these allegations?

Okay, I'm a Christian - so I'm not allowed to sit on the fence. Thus I'll be actively participating in this thread to allay the fears of people holding anti-Christian stereotypes, especially pointing them to the Bible about what Christianity really is. I hope that our Muslim friends would take good advantage of this opportunity to set us straight about some of the misconceptions we often hold about Islam.

Well, these things don't take God by surprise and He's definitely not looking for quick fixes for His own. In the Bible, we have warnings that such teachings will insidiously creep in, and they would find wide acceptance among even committed Christians. Paul said in Acts 20:27-31 >>

'For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.'

The keyword there is 'watch' - we should watch out for these things; and we can only get to recognise and avoid these teachings in proportion to our prayerfully spending time in God's word (reading, studying, meditating, and obeying). Col. 3:16 puts it this way:

'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.'

Good response in seunfolake; but sometimes it is possible for Christians to get sick or experience some illness even after using wisdom and obeying the natural laws of hygiene and health habits. This is why I appreciate mlks_baby's detailed response. I'm sure Paul observed all the natural laws and health habits he knew how (especially because as a Jew he should have applied Jewish moral and dietary ethics that keeps them healthy); yet he was sick at some point (Gal. 4:13).

There are sicknesses that are biologically related and environmentally causative. However, there are sicknesses that are spiritually determined - especially when the enemy wants to resist a deeply devoted and fruitful servant of God. On the whole, thank God we have an unshakable victory in Jesus Christ.

babyosisi:
Peaceful religion my unpedicured feet!!!

Babyosisi, that was rather tough - but I understand where you're coming from, especially as you were affected by the unfortunate incidents of the religious uprisings in Nigeria.

@Jalal,

I would consider your concerns genuine and legitimate. To be sure, more and more Christians are investing time, energy and resources in serious effort to understand Islam - that's why we go to the source books (the Qur'an and Hadith) and come away asking questions about what, why, who, where and how. Muslims have also asked questions about Christianity, and we have tried to answer many of those questions and keep doing so.

In the case of a religion (Islam) claiming familiarity with the Biblical faiths (Judaism and Christianity), we have all the more reason to ask these questions; hence we ask many times why Islam claims to be a 'religion of peace' and yet all we often see by its adherents today is the very opposite - war and chaos.

Again, we ask questions of who are responsible for these heinous crimes and if at all they could be considered 'Muslims' keeping the tenets of the Islamic faith as handed down to them by the Prophet of Islam.

Where do these perpetrators get their inspiration from to go out on rampage at the drop of a pin - and are the answers legitimately establishing Islam by the book?

How did the Prophet of Islam live his life and pursue his career against the backdrop of several issues that non-Muslims find contradictory to his 'holy' calling as a prophet?

Which brings us to a fundamental question: what really is Islam and are its claims legitimate and true to what its adherents want us to believe it is?

If Islam cannot stand up to be scrutinized in the wake of recent developments that worry millions the world over, then something is definitely wrong somewhere. To be fair to you, Christians make every effort to understand Islam; but we need answers to some of the questions being asked, rather than the 'take-it-or-leave-it' responses that are often advanced by our Muslim friends.

No, dem think say na film trick - the type wey man pickin dey see for Hawaii Five '0, or Matrix Reloaded.

@ajia23,

First, just as babyosisi has pointed out, the practices you find in any church does not necessarily make them Biblically sound just because a church is engaged in such practices. There are lots of things that some Muslims inculcate that are not in the Qur'an, and this would not mean that those Muslims are practising Islam by the book. I believe that when those churches come to realise the truth of this matter, they'll cease practising them.

Now, it's rather quaint that prayers are said as a duty to ask forgiveness and blessings for the departed Prophets. While respecting this tenet of Islam, I would rather say that it finds no reference or bearing in the Bible. Earlier, we saw that 'the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten' (Eccl. 9:5); thus, we believe that nothing we do on this side of reality would affect them on the other side of reality. If a man died righteous, then his reward is sure and blessings will attend upon him on that great Day of reckoning; so in like manner a man who dies in his sins awaits his reward, no matter the number of prayers offered on his behalf, just as the Bible says: ' it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.' (Heb. 9:27).

There are no prayers offered to God on behalf of the dead in the Bible - whether in seeking forgiveness or blessing for them, or otherwise in seeking some means of blessing upon ourselves by so doing.

It is in this connection that one wonders why in Islam prayers are said as a duty for the departed everytime their names are mentioned, especially the exclusive one used for Muhammad - Salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam or alaihi al-salat wa al-salam ('upon him be the prayer and the peace'), which is rarely, if ever, used for any of the other prophet in Islam such as Moses, Noah, Abraham, and David.

Would you be saying that the significance of the 'duty' to pray the p.b.u.h. on Muhammad is necessary as such to derive some form of blessing from God by that prayer? Or, that the prayers of Muslims are contingent on the 'duty' to say the p.b.u.h. at every mention of Muhammad; so that a Muslim's prayers are answered depending on whether he uses the p.b.u.h. or not at the mention of Muhammad?

@ajia23,

Your turning around my question is of no effect, because you ought to have dropped your Islamic stereotype and read carefully my concluding paragraph earlier before spinning off. This is what I said:

4get_me:
Not all Muslims condone these developments, and it's a great thing to hear more and more of them speaking up to counter this state of affairs. One cannot blame it on the Prophet Muhammad himself; although I think those in authority in such Muslim communities should not just allow things to play out unnoticed. In the case of the Somali shooting incident, we would like to see action follow the promise of those in authority to bring the sinister perpetrators to book.

Now when you began to desperately refer to tyrants who we all know quite well were no Christians, even though they pretended to profess they were, one wonders what you were getting at. In our world today, we live with the reality of Islamic harrassments and terrorism from Islamists - from Nigeria to Iraq to Pakistan to Europe - and all too often, these acts are committed by people who believe they have a just cause to please Prophet Muhammad and Allah and murder their own fellow Muslims at just any excuse, such as in the case of the falafel vendors.

'A crime is a crime no matter who committed it' - and you'd rather denounce 'Jesus' who committed no crime and leave out Muhammad whose crimes against humanity are so glaring - typically another Islamic stereotype. You're grasping at the wind, my friend. There's a whole encyclopedia of crimes committed by Muhammad against other people, especially women. In subsequent posts, I'll be listing just a few of them - and I hope that you would be true to your words and equally ready to denounce Muhammad for such crimes. Don't dribble around this, because I'm going to hold you to your words.

God's Full Provision For Man

(a) The value of a gift rests on the value of the giver and the preciousness of the gift.

(b) The greatest gift that God has given to man is HIMSELF.

     In all that Abraham was blessed with - riches and material wealth - God still gave Himself to the patriarch when He said:
     "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." (Gen. 15:1).

(c) Almost everything and anything that people possess on earth could be stolen or corrupted by decay (Matt. 6:19).

(d) When God gives of Himself, no one can steal or corrupt Him!

(e) It was not until the Son of God came to earth that the fulness of God's gift of Himself could be released to man. When
     Jesus gave Himself for us (Gal. 1:4), He provided the basis for our receiving the full gift of God Himself.

(f) This fulness assures us by faith that we cannot lack anything outside of Him -
 
     [i] God is FOR us - Rom. 8:31 
     What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

    [ii] God is WITH us - Matt. 1:23
     Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
     Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

   [iii] God is IN us - 1 John 4:12
     No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love
     is perfected in us.

If God has given Himself to be FOR us, WITH us, and IN us, then I can spend my days living in perfect assurance in an unstable world - knowing that my life and all I am belong to the One who loved me even before I knew Him. Therefore, my tongue will praise Him with the thanks of Eph. 1:3 -

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."

Beloved, no gift compares to GOD HIMSELF!!

@Abeem,

There are a few questions that I would like to ask about the amazing Qur'an in days to come, but let me start first with this:

I've often heard of the number 19 as being one of the 'miracles' of the Qur'an. Please could you explain the significance of 19 in the 'miracle'?

Thanks.

Oga belloti, salam. Are you saying we should no longer ask questions - especially those questions that can't be ignored in our pursuit and search for truth in spiritual matters?

Well, lordimpaq. . . thank you so very much for that challenge - and your efforts have really blessed me. I understand how difficult it is for some to see these things; but we can hold our friends very dear in prayer that they may come to see them as well someday. I offer you the apostle Paul's encouragement in patience when trying to persuade our loved ones:

¹⁴I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. ¹⁶Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

            -- Phil. 3:14-16

manakins:
Seun i advise u ban/ penalise people passing wrong infos.
Information is a commodity so people should read if not that means our generation would continue to live on Hearsay.

Whatz wrong with this fellow?

A Forum is an open place to post both ignorant and well-informed opinions. When they meet and crease each other, then information will result. To ban and/or penalise the 'ignorant' and leave the 'informed' makes any forum an elitist platform.

This would seem a nice exposition except for a few slips: 'the Last Day' has been stretched in the verses quoted to arrive at some other idea out of context. The Last Day is not the last thousand years of a 7 "day" cycle or the "day" of rest, or Sabbath, for His Children - as was earlier construed:

RhodaRose:
So you see that the last "day" that is spoken of is actually the last thousand years of a 7 "day" cycle?  or the "day" of rest, or Sabbath, for His Children?

If one takes into account the calculations offered for this theory, "120 years of man times the Jubile is: 120 X 50 = 6000 years" in connection with Luke 4:18-20 at the time when Christ 'closed the book', then we should be in another millenium and not the 7th! This is because, if one supposes that the age of God's numbering was 6000 years (or the 6th millenium) at the time Jesus was read the Isaiah text quoted in Luke 4, then 2000 years since then should make our present age the 8th millenium (6000 years + 2000 years = 8000 years). So, the figues do not add up to make the Last Day equal to a 7 'day' cycle or day of rest or Sabbath.

'The Last Day' is used in Scripture only in John in reference to the end of the ages when all will stand before God to be judged for whatever anyone has done - good or bad. As such, it is often used in connection with the resurrection and judgement, when rewards will be given according to each person's life on earth.

Resurrection:

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:24 - Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Judgement:

John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Rewards:

2 Tim. 1:12 - For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.


Akin to this are such terms used by other inspired writers as 'that day' (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul); the day of judgement (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, John), etc. A few examples below show that these all point to the same period more or less:

Matt. 7:22 - Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Matt. 10:15 - Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mat 11:22 - But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. (see also Mark 6:11).

Luke 10:12 - But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

2 Pet. 2:9 - The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.

2 Pet. 3:7 - But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

1 John 4:17 - Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.


Basically, the Last Day is often a pointer to the time known as the Day of Judgement, and not a day of rest or Sabbath.

ajia23:
If you think the answer to the questions above are obvious, you should be able to apply it to the muslim situation as well

Oh, really? Then you're suggesting that I assume that the fellows who proclaim themselves Muslims should get your thumbs up for going about and ending people's jobs and lives for merely selling falafel for a living? Or they should be given more feathers to their caps for shooting sportsmen just for wearing shorts?

imomoh24:
I'm a member of Eckankar.i've been so for as long as i care 2 remember. . . i don't see any reason for anyone to start attacking something or someone if that thing or person is not a threat to u. my advice to all is that u get your facts right before u critise.

Have you watched the video strip offered in the link by the originator of this thread? What do you say to the serious allegations of plagiarism and the re-cast history of the founder of eckankar, and the several other stuff that we can't all just wish away?

@ajia23,

Let me clarify a few things as a way to help this discussion.

(a) Praying to commit a soul to God at funeral rites may be plausible and understandable, although at this time I can't proffer Biblical references to the point (when I'm less busy at home, I'll attempt that).

(b) After burial, such prayers would be classed as part of necromancy as far as the Bible forbids such communication with or on behalf of the dead and departed. A few verses come to mind when I think of this:

Eccl. 9:5
'For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward,
for the memory of them is forgotten.'

When I think of the practice of mentioning some sort of 'prayer' at every mention of the names of the departed (priest, prophet, or pauper), this would seem to me beyond the ordinary. It becomes a religious rite that is no longer an ordinary sign of reverence, but a prayer, petition, or entreaty to God as though the departed holds sway over the lives of those living. With this in mind, I've tried to read through the Bible for any occasion when Godly people engaged in this practice - and I've found none. Even at the mention of Moses, the Jews had no such 'prayers' said at every mention of the name of the great Prophet. Every one of the prophets sent by God in Biblical history were greatly respected by Godly people; yet for all that, they did not have the habit of attaching a sentimental prayer to the names of any one of them.

The reason is simple - attaching such prayers at the mention of the names of the departed would mean that one's life, in part, depended on such a prayer. For Jews and Christians (from a Biblical perspective), no such 'prayer' could influence the lives of the living. To attempt a seeking of some sort of grace or special blessing in this way, is to fall prey to God's warning against such. This is why the prophet Isaiah 8:19 cried out against this practice -

'And when they say to you, "Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter," should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?' (ESV).

Note the emboldened words - it portrays the idea of people seeing the dead as having any kind of influence on the living; so that it becomes a religious occupation of mind to 'inquire of the dead' (in the sense of saying some prayer or blessing upon them) on behalf of the living (in context of such prayer having an influence on the living, whether for good or bad).

One thing is for sure - the dead know nothing and have no influence over the lives of the living (Eccl. 9:5). The only influence they could have is that which the enquirer consciously allows them to have - by way of some sort of divination, prayer or petition said to or for them as a means of receiving some blessings; or worse, by sorcery and witchcraft. All these are classified as necromancy in the Bible; and that is what God delineates as abominable in His sight.

The question is: Why do Muslims say the 'Salah' or the salawat after the mention of the names of the prophets? What is the real significance of saying the p.b.u.h. or s.a.w. after mentioning a prophet's name (especially Muhammad's) - and why is that a farida (compulsory) rite?

Regards.

What really drives people into such kinds of acts against their own fellows - especially in this age?   It's a bit worrisome that we have more and more of these shootings by some Muslims at other Muslims for harmlessly social activities. One week it was the shooting an Iraqi coach and two tennis players team for wearing shorts; and we've not quite recovered from that before we get to digest another sad story about people being killed for just watching a football match?

Criminal as these spate of shootings are, could there be any possible underlying religious ideology behind it? I was browsing the news online and came across this not-so-smiley report above the harrassments of Muslims by their fellow Muslims in Iraq. As the story goes, it seems that some people just take it upon themselves to do and undo whatever they feel like, in the name of a religious attachment. Excepts of the Telegraph report titled "Pack up or die, street vendors told":

- 'As the purveyors of nothing spicier than the odd dash of hot chilli sauce, Baghdad's falafel vendors had never imagined their snacks might be deemed a threat to public morality.

Now, though, their simple offerings of chickpeas fried in breadcrumbs have gone the same way as alcohol, pop music and foreign films - labelled theologically impure by the country's growing number of Islamic zealots.

In a bizarre example of Iraq's creeping "Talibanisation", militants visited falafel vendors a fortnight ago, telling them to pack up their stalls by today or be killed.

The ultimatum seemed so odd that, at first, most laughed it off - until two of them were shot dead as they plied their trade.

"They came telling us, 'You have 14 days to end this job' and I asked them what was the problem," said Abu Zeinab, 32, who was packing up his stall for good yesterday in the suburb of al Dora, a hardline Sunni neighbourhood.

"I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Mohammed the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either.

"I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Mohammed's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."

Why Baghdad's falafel vendors should be blacklisted while their colleagues are allowed to continue selling kebabs or Western-style pizzas and burgers remains a mystery.'

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all Muslims condone these developments, and it's a great thing to hear more and more of them speaking up to counter this state of affairs. One cannot blame it on the Prophet Muhammad himself; although I think those in authority in such Muslim communities should not just allow things to play out unnoticed. In the case of the Somali shooting incident, we would like to see action follow the promise of those in authority to bring the sinister perpetrators to book.

Silver medal. You're coming closer home.

I've also learnt quite a lot through this medium. Bless up y'all.

I should rather be thanking you for your input. God bless.

Em, guys. . . let's go it easy on our dear friend ajia23. He has an enquiring mind in just the same way that not many of us understand Islam - we're all seekers on both sides of the fence. Let me attempt to offer what little I understand from the Bible about this issue of necromancy.

Necromancy - divination by alleged communication with the dead; inquiring of the dead; sorcery, witchcraft.

As such, necromancy at it's basic level is any communication with the dead in the same way one would communicate with the living. This practice involves some special kind of divination, such as sorcery and witchcraft. However it is defined and understood, it is a practice God explicitly condemns in the Bible whereever it is mentioned in whatever form -

Lev. 19:31 -
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

Lev. 20:6 -
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Deut. 18:10-12
"¹⁰There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, ¹¹Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. ¹²For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

It is this seeking to communicate with the dead, for whatever purpose, that led King Saul to his ultimate destruction - 1 Samuel 28.

Bottomline, necromancy (in whatever form - whether mere communicating with or praying for the dead) is forbidden in Scripture. There's no record of any God-fearing Jew praying for the dead; and nowhere is the practice remotely encouraged or countenanced among Christians. Do not COMMUNE WITH or PRAY TO or WISH PRAYERS for the dead - it is a practice condemned by God.