₦airaland Forum

Rossikk: The Index ranks countries on a 100 point scale, with 0 being the best score (''no hunger'') and 100 being the worst, though neither of these extremes is achieved in practice. The higher the score, the worse the food situation of a country. Values less than 4.9 reflect "low hunger", values between 5 and 9.9 reflect "moderate hunger", values between 10 and 19.9 indicate a "serious", values between 20 and 29.9 are "alarming", and values exceeding 30 are "extremely alarming" hunger problem.

Vales on the Index (2011) for:

India 23.7

Nigeria 15.5

''The Global Hunger Index is composed of the proportion of the undernourished as a percentage of the population, the prevalence of underweight children under the age of five and the mortality rate of children under the age of five (calculated average, in percentages).''

^

aletheia: It has been my experience that the perception of India is a far cry from the actual reality. . .a romanticized view that doesn't bear up under closer scrutiny.

violent: Population of a country wouldn't matter much if majority of it's people are unproductive or the environment does not allow for much room to thrive, learn that doofos!

Err. . .you are actually reinforcing his earlier point.

ROSSIKE: Considering she has 1.1 billion people, it's no surprise she has a bigger economy than Nigeria. What a doofus. If you want to compare GDP, you should compare India with Africa, not Nigeria. And Africa's GPD is roughly the same as India's, probably more, since India is poorer than Africa, as shown by the latest studies.

It has been my experience that the perception of India is a far cry from the actual reality. . .a romanticized view that doesn't bear up under closer scrutiny.

ishmael: i need Epi info and cspro. I have some clients that want me to take them on it. Are u in nigeria or u're abroad? My email add is: ishmaelxy@yahoo.com Regards.

You can download Epi Info from the cdc website here: There are 2 flavours - Epi Info 7 (latest one) and Epi Info 3.5.3. I suspect the one you are interested in is the 3.5.3 but you can take a look at the Epi Info 7 version which is smaller.

P.S. I 'll try an send an email later in the week. If you are in Abuja, we can collaborate.

Chubhie: He has just announced the death of the commander in chief...Or how else will there be election before 2015

Not only that of the C-in-C but also that of the Vice President. Only then will there be an election before 2015, as the constitution mandates an election within 90 days in such an unlikely event occurring.

In any case the man Bakare is deluded and has a lying spirit prophesying lies. Isn't OBJ still alive today?

ishmael: Ah, that means u're a coding master. Stata and sas are similar, i've used them before too. Pls do u use Epi info? Do u have the software to send to me if it's not too bulky? I'm also a statistician, with Msc in view. Regards.

I started out using Epi Info and I teach in an annual workshop on Epi Info for medical doctors, but these days I usually only use it for data entry purposes. . .though I am now shifting to Epidata for data entry.
Which software specifically do you want me to send to you?

ishmael: Thanx for ur contributions too. I use R too, but i prefer spss and minitab most of the time for issues like these since i would not have to write any codes. Are u a statistician? statisticians are great and wonderful.

^
Well, I have a Masters in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Thanks for the compliment. I generally prefer using R and on occasion Stata and SAS.

ishmael: This is not a regression problem in x and y per se, but a time series linear trend problem. The only difference btw the regression and time series linear trend is that the x represents some time periods like hour, day, month, year, etc. Hence in this problem the dependent variable is Amount, while the independent variable is the Year represented by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. U still follow the same mthd as the normal regression to fit the model Y = a + bx. Hope u understand? U can forecast for the next 2 years by substituting x=6 and x=7 respectively into ur model or equation. Regards.

^
Taking it some few steps further:
Let's fit the regression equation in order to help Jayjuice. . .I usually use R for most of my statistical work so. . .these commands in R:

year=1:5
amount.per.year=c(1000,1300,1800,2000,2200)
eqn=lm(amount.per.year ~ year)
summary(eqn)

. . .will produce the following as part of the output:

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
(Intercept)   730.00     106.61   6.847  0.00638 **
year          310.00      32.15   9.644  0.00237 **

Recall the regression equation: y = a + bx where y is the dependent (or predicted) variable which in this case is Amount, a is the Intercept, and b is the slope or regression coefficient and x is the independent (or predictor) variable, which in this case is Year. Plugging in the highlighted values from the output above gives a regression equation:

                           y = 730.00 + 310.00*x

And so substituting the x=6 and x=7 respectively gives you your predicted amounts for years 6 and 7.

In R predicting for years 6 and 7 is sort of:

predict(eqn, as.data.frame(c(6:7)))

Though this technically is how it should read:

> year=append(year, 6:7)
> predict(eqn, as.data.frame(year))
   1    2    3    4    5    6    7 
1040 1350 1660 1970 2280 2590 2900

But bear in mind that strictly speaking. . .

ishmael: This is not a regression problem in x and y per se, but a time series linear trend problem.

Jayjuice: this is to be solved using the chi-square formula..i realy dont understand it....."in a study to determine iff there is an association between alcohol consumption and cigarette smokers a researcher collected the following data from 1090 respondent.
Those who take alcohol and cigarette-580,those who take alcohol only-40, those who take cigarette only-200,and those who take neither 270.
Is there any association between them".........im supose to usee the (o-e)2/e formula,but im kinda stuck...any help??

^
Already solved like you said but for the sake of others. . .

These data are represented in a 2 by 2 contingency table like this:

                  | Alcohol
======================================
                  | Yes | No  | Total
--------------------------------------
 Cigarette | Yes  | 580 | 200 |  780
           ---------------------------
           |  No  |  40 | 270 |  310
======================================
            Total | 620 | 470 | 1090

1. The chi-squared test formula is: Σⁿ_i=1(O_i-E_i)²/E_i, where n is the number of cells and O_i and E_i are the observed and expected frequencies in the cell under consideration.
2. So the the chi-squared test statistic is the sum across all the cells of the square of the difference between the observed and the expected frequency divided the expected frequency.
3. How to calculate?
a. Simply compute (O-E)²/E for each cell and add them all up.
b. Compute the degree of freedom (df)
c. Compare the calculated chi-square statistic for the given degree of freedom and make a decision
4. The expected frequency for each cell will be given by this: (column total*row total)/grand total. So a 2 by 2 table of expected frequencies for the data is:

                  | Alcohol
======================================
                  |    Yes |    No  | Total
--------------------------------------
 Cigarette | Yes  | 443.67 | 336.33 |  780
           ---------------------------
           |  No  | 176.33 | 133.67 |  310
======================================
            Total |    620 |    470 | 1090

5. And the chi-square statistic (computing and adding up all the cells) is: (580-443.67)²/443.67 + . . . + (270-133.67)²/133.67 = 341.5988
6. The degree of freedom is given by (r-1)*(c-1) i.e. (number of rows-1)x(number of columns-1) = (2-1)*(2-1) = 1
7. A chi-square test statistic of 341.5988 with df=1 has an exact p value of 2.862087e-76 (2.862087 x 10^-76) which is far far less than 0.05, thus we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between alcohol and cigarette smoking.

P.S. The command in R which gives the p value is:

pchisq(341.5988, 1, ncp=0, lower.tail = FALSE)

@OP: please break up your article into paragraphs for easier reading. Thanks.

I 'd intended starting a thread like this - so I guess I will just contribute here. Will be back.

okeyxyz: I don't give a "f**k" where the word comes from, I'm only pointing out your flawed reasoning. You can't say "idu" is not igbo because one igbo guy happens not to know what it means, simple. Now if that comes across to you as ethnic jingoism, then i'm not suprised your logic was flawed in the first place.

You need to grow up. I can see you are an innately insecure fellow. Learn to be less insular and foul-mouthed.

---

NRI PRIEST: @aletheia,I read somewhere that "Onoja" the daughter of Eri married a man and they bore the Igalla tribe. Igala even have the ancient Nri four days of the week and also has the "Ogwugwu" and "Ikenga" deities which originated from Nri. These factors show a strong Nri origin.

So "Agaba" in Igala means great and " Idu" lion or is it the other way round. I have a good reason why I am askng all these. Bear with me.

You are right about the 4-day week &c. Agaba==Great, Idu==Lion. No worries man. No be fight. . .though some of your people think it is.

NRI PRIEST: Nop,Igala originated from Eri. And "Agaba Idu" doesnt literally mean "great lion". Its an idiomatic expression and can be used to describe a great man. Agaba is actually a masqurade with great esteem in my town but I will call my father tomorow and find out what "Idu" mean because there is another expression he uses " Idu n' Oba".

May be for you it's an idiomatic expression but in Igala it means Great Lion. You asked for the meaning. Why quibble when it's given? Languages are fluid and dynamic and for two ethnic groups who have from precolonial times been contiguous and interacted extensively: why should it alarm you if Igbo borrowed words from Igala. All languages borrow words from other languages.

Can you provide a source for this assertion:

NRI PRIEST: Nop,Igala originated from Eri.

I 'd like to look it up.

---

okeyxyz: So what if he doesn't know the igbo word "Idu", it doesn't disqualify him as igbo, nor does it disqualify "Idu" as an igbo word.

Hold your horses. I hope you are not one of them ethnic jingoists. The logic of my sentence is quite clear. Are all words in Igbo of Igbo origin?

NRI PRIEST: Where do you guys get this " Agaba Idu" from? I swear its an Igbo word. We always call a great person " Agaba Idu" in Anambra where I come from. Is it also used by Igalas. I know what "Agaba" means but the "Idu" I dont know. I am very curous and needs some explanation. Onicha is also affectionatelly called " Onicha Ado n' Idu".

If it's Igbo, how come you don't know the meaning of "Idu". Not surprising that the phrase occurs in Igboland. . .seeing as some Igbos (some Western Igbos, Onitsha, and around Enugu) descended from Igala. Agaba Idu means Great Lion.

At 5:38pm On Jul 08, 2010 on this thread The Left Behind Christians

---

Jesus Christ is returning someday soon! But the "rapture" theory is based on human reasoning - which probably accounts for why there are so many different views on it. We often believe what we are told rather than being like the Bereans "who searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Flawed foundation

The word rapture comes from the Latin rapere, meaning, "to seize" or "to abduct." It is translated from the Greek word that is rendered "caught up" in English Bibles today.
All advocates of the rapture agree that the main argument is based on 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Here the argument stands or falls. First, look at verse 17:

KJV: I Th 4:17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The Greek verb for "caught up" is harpazo

726 harpazo har-pad'-zo from a derivative of 138;
to seize (in various applications):--catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force). see GREEK for 138

Why would Paul use such a strong word? Let's allow the Bible to speak for itself. The context of the subject begins in verse 13 and concludes in verse 11 of the next chapter. Paul wrote this section of the letter in answer to concerns of the local Christians.
As you read verse 13, you discover that Christians in Thessalonica were grieving over the unexpected deaths of members of their congregation.

Albert Barnes comments: "There seems some reason to suppose, that some of them believed that, though those who were dead would indeed rise again, yet it would be long after those who were living when the Lord Jesus would return had been taken to glory, and would always be in a condition inferior to them" ( Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:13).

Paul wrote that they should not grieve over this: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus [believers who had died]" (verse 14).
Was he responding to a worry about whether Christ would rescue believers from the Great Tribulation? No, nothing is said of this. Nor is there anything in these verses that intimates Christ making a swooping pass by the earth to snatch off a few people to take them to heaven. These verses refer only to the doctrine of the second coming, at which time Jesus sets foot on the earth.

History

Great numbers of sincere people have placed their hope in this belief without biblical proof. In the 1500s, there was much opposition to the depredations of the Roman Catholic Church, with people like Calvin, Luther and Huss excoriating the pope as the Antichrist. The Council of Trent in 1545 was for the purpose of the Counter-Reformation,and it affirmed the the belief that catholic tradition had equal authority or was even superior to the bible.

The idea of a rapture is said to have originated with a Spanish Catholic Jesuit priest named Ribera, in 1580 A.D. during a time of much bloodshed in Europe as Roman catholics persecuted and murdered their opponents. This doctrine said that Christ was going to come and secretly snatch away the Church before a great seven-year tribulation, when the "Antichrist" would rule the world. This doctrine of futurism claimed that the prophecies of the book of Revelation only applies to the last seven years of human society. It was designed to take the pressure off the Roman catholic Pope, who was universally regarded as being the Antichrist by His opponents. Later Emmanuel Laconza, also a Jesuit priest, built on Ribera's teachings. He later wrote a book under the assumed Jewish name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. He later began teaching his theory of a 45 day "rapture".

Later, a man by the name of Edward Irving, who was born in Scotland in 1792, became one of the most elequent preachers of his time, and a leading figure of the Catholic Apostolic Church of England. Irving discovered Lacunza's book and fell in love with it, and translated it into English, and it was published in London in 1827. Around this time Irving heard what he believed to be a voice from heaven, commanding him to preach the Secret Rapture of the Saints. Irving then began to hold Bible conferences throughout Scotland, emphasizing the coming of Jesus to rapture His church.

John Nelson Darby picked up on the doctrine in the early 1830's in England. Darby changed the time period of the rapture from 45 days to 3 1/2 years. John Nelson Darby started a movement called the Plymouth Brethren in America. This secret rapture theory was introduced into the United States and Canada in the 1860's and 1870's although there is some indication that it may have been taught as early as the 1840's. Darby visited the United States at least six times.

The new teaching was spreading, a Congregationalist preacher by the name of C.I. Scofield came under the influence of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. Scofield later was to write the Scofield Reference Bible which had a tremendous impact upon the beliefs of many people. Through his Bible, Scofield carried the theory of a secret rapture into the very heart of evangelism. Some look on the "notes" in this Bible as the Word of God instead as notes of Scofield.

Let us now examine the chain of how the theory of a secret rapture originated; It began as a Roman Catholic invention by the Jesuit Priest Ribera, who later influenced another Jesuit Priest Lacunza, Lacunza influenced Irving, Irving influenced Darby, Darby influenced Scofield; Scofield and Darby then influenced D.L. Moody, and Moody influenced the Pentecostal Movement.

How was it that the Pentecostal Movement was influenced?
The Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world. When the Assemblies of God held their first council in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, they were a small movement and didn't own a publishing house. They needed study material for their church and they bought it from Moody Press and then had their own cover stitched on it. By purchasing their teaching material from Moody Press the Assemblies of God began to teach the doctrines and theories of D.L. Moody who had obtained them from Scofield, Darby, and others.

Does the Bible then teach that will there be a "secret rapture"?

Matt 24:
[27] For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Rev 1:
[7] Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
[10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
[11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
I Th 4:
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Matthew 24:

[25] Behold, I have told you before.
[26] Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
[27] For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[28] For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
[29] Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
[30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
[31] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

MacDaddy01: Ode, I am not bound by your caveman book called the bible. I live a material life in a material world in a material body. I dont lie to myself. Money is almost everything in this world.


As for you, you are a hypocrite that can not even live by the standards preached by the bible and Jesus christ and you have the nerve to call me shallow?

Jesus was right to people like you sheep!

And what exactly is the point of this childish rant? You are defensive about the fact that for you making a "£1,000 gross profit" is a "fulfilled life".
By all means go ahead and make as much money as you want, you silly delusional child. No one has denied you that desire. Your paranoia and madness lies in your feeling aggrieved and frenzied that others disagree with. Your illogicality is displayed plainly: You quote Jesus and say that Jesus says we should give away our earthly possessions and yet you mock the Christians who give away their money:

MacDaddy01: They were coming from paying tithes in church. . .

Clearly you are schizophrenic. Go take your medication, boy.

MacDaddy01: Shallow? See this hypocrite, why dont you be like Jesus and give away all your salary/assets and spend your time preaching the gospel?

^
Another typically shallow, knee-jerk, ill-thought out and illogical response. Nothing in the Bible verses you quoted supports your mindset that a "£1,000 gross profit" or "making money" is a "fulfilled life". Certainly the import of Jesus' words in no way validates your shallow, callow and miserable worldview.

MacDaddy01: lol.......it was a fufilled day. I made money!

^
So making money is for you is a "fulfilled life". How typically callow and shallow.

MacDaddy01: Fulfilled lives? They were coming from paying tithes in church and I was coming back from £1,000 gross profit from a business deal with my pal.

^So £1,000 gross profit for you is a "fulfilled life". How typically callow and shallow.

chuckdee4: We know Fed's not what he used to be anymore but in his day there was no one close to him, all i want is for him to equal Pete Sampras's record

Him don pass Sampras record tey tey!

PhysicsQED: In fact, for a massive (as opposed to massless) particle to travel at the speed of light (as opposed to just near the speed of light), it would need infinite energy (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#16), while (real) massless particles move at the speed of light.

^
How about "The Infinite Improbability Drive"?

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a faster-than-light drive. The most prominent usage of the drive is in the starship Heart of Gold. It is based on a particular perception of quantum theory: a subatomic particle is most likely to be in a particular place, such as near the nucleus of an atom, but there is also a small probability of it being found very far from its point of origin (for example close to a distant star). Thus, a body could travel from place to place without passing through the intervening space (or hyperspace, for that matter), if you had sufficient control of probability.[1] According to the Guide, in this way the drive "passes through every conceivable point in every conceivable universe almost simultaneously," meaning the traveller is "never sure where they'll end up or even what species they'll be when they get there" and therefore it's important to dress accordingly.

Just joking: Readers of HHGTTG will recognize the allusion.

Deep Sight: Thank you Aleth.

Thank you for the kind words. . .it does seem that the quality of posts in the religious section has declined. As you rightly pointed out: lacking in depth.

frosbel: So visions are now necromancy , lol.

^
Dear me. And there I was thinking you had a better grasp of English. Classic cognitive dissonance. The Transfiguration was not a vision. And stop misquoting me. . .where did I say visions are necromancy. Engage your mind and reason: God forbids communication with the dead therefore you will not have visions of dead people because God will not transgress his own commands!

aletheia: ^
The Transfiguration was a vision? Visions of dead men? Really? Is that consistent with God who forbids necromancy and the like? Something that was reported as an event. . .For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2Pe 1:16-18

frosbel: So Moses was in paradise, right ?

Paradise was never mentioned in the old testament all the way to Jesus , why ? Because no one went to paradise, they died and they remained dead till the resurrection.

^
On such selective amnesia of the Bible are cults born and flounder:
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luk 23:43)
Paradise was were Lazarus & Abraham were in hades.

frosbel: "And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said." - Deuteronomy 34:5

Where does it say here that Moses went to Paradise, none, and you know why, because there is no such thing, lol.

^
lol as much as you like, it doesn't change what is written:
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luk 23:43)
Note that "Today" refers to the present not some indeterminate future time. If I must choose between frosbel and Jesus' words: the choice is clear. Jesus trumps frosbel!
And Paul does mention paradise:
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2Co 12:4)

The signs are clear: you are some way gone in reconstructing the Bible to suit your wish-fulfillment theology. All too often such as you end up claiming Paul forged the scriptures. Seen it happen over and over again.

frosbel: Besides, why was SATAN contending for the body of Moses and not his SOUL ? Surely SATAN would not have cared , since Moses was in Paradise right ?

^
Go and ask Satan what he wanted to do with Moses' body. However, you willfuly ignore that Jesus Himself distinguishes between Soul & Body. Shame on you:
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell(geenna).
(Mat 10:28. This verse is clear:
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: Thus according to Jesus, men are able to kill the body but are unable to kill the soul. Doesn't elementary English comprehension show you that the soul is thus different from the body?

frosbel: "But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses' body.)" - Jude 1:9

^
Moses' body not Moses' soul.

frosbel: Why also when Lazarus was raised from the dead did he not tell us stories about what the world yonder looked like ? Even his sisters knew he was dead and that Jesus will raise him on the last day and our Lord used the word 'sleep' here, so how can he be sleeping while is soul is on paradise

^
Not all that occurred is recorded in the Bible. . .not even for Jesus. So how do you know "he not tell us stories about what the world yonder looked like". His sisters were expressing their and our belief which is stated succinctly as follows: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. (Act 24:15)
Won't be surprised if you become a Sadducee who were "sad, you see".

frosbel: "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." - Ecclesiastes 12:7

^
. Juxtapose this:
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?(Ecc 3:21)
. . .and it is apparent you wrench that verse out of context.

And the soul? For Man is Body, Soul & Spirit. . .as testified by scriptures:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)

frosbel: Stop confusing yourself , brother

^
And what makes you think you are not the one confusing himself?

^
The Transfiguration was a vision? Visions of dead men? Really? Is that consistent with God who forbids necromancy and the like? Something that was reported as an event. . .For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2Pe 1:16-18

Fr0sbel: I am done discussing with you.

^
And so you cut and run because you know that the answer to this question:
[size=16pt]Where did Moses appear from?[/size] causes your opinions on this matter to collapse under the weight of inconsistency.
I repeat:

1. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (Deu 34:5)
2. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (Luk 9:30)
3. Moses died --- we know and yet we see Moses here conversing with Jesus, an event attested to by all three synoptic gospels.
4. Where did Moses appear from?
5. Here is a hint: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (Joh 3:13)

Here is the conclusion: "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way."

Certain topics will always repeat. . .

From much earlier on NL:

vedaxcool:
And again the source of Light the sun could not come after the formation of the earth as the sun is believed scientifically to have been the place of origin of the earth, in other words the sun is believd to have ejected Materials used in the formation of the earth. geneisis is just another big blunder of the Jews, as God could not tbe responsible for this mistake.

Science believes what science believes, but the Word of Yahweh is sure, settled and established forever! Just a little thought on your part would have shown you that even your science agrees that light exists apart from and is distinct from the sun.

aletheia:
If you weren't in such a haste to disprove the bible, application of a little common sense would have shown you the invalidity of your assertion above.
The sun gives light, yes, but is the sun the only source of light? The account is quite clear that light was created on the first day and in no way gives the impression that the sun is the source of that light.Indeed the Hebrew makes the distinction clear by using different words in verse 3 and 16 albeit translated as light in English. In verse 3: אור ('ôr); illumination or (concretely) luminary: - bright, clear, + day, light (-ning) and in verse 16: מארה מאורה מאר מאור (mâ'ôr mâ'ôr me'ôrâh me'ôrâh); properly a luminous body or luminary.

Thus you see that modern science agrees with the bible when it makes a distinction between light and the sun:

Wikipedia: Light is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (in a range from about 380 or 400 nanometres to about 760 or 780 nm).[1] In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.

Wikipedia: The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. . .The energy of this sunlight supports almost all life on Earth by photosynthesis, and drives Earth's climate and weather.

^

aletheia: ^
I will leave you with this:
1. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (Deu 34:5)
2. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (Luk 9:30)
3. Moses died --- we know and yet we see Moses here conversing with Jesus, an event attested to by all three synoptic gospels.
4. [size=16pt]Where did Moses appear from?[/size]
5. Here is a hint: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (Joh 3:13)

I repeat. . .

aletheia: Quit running around in circles, will ya? The problem here is your propensity to swing from one extreme position to another extreme position. You are basically lost in translation and have built your opinion on an inadequate English word. . .

The word Hell is one English word that translates three Greek ones: hades, gehenna and tartaros. In the New Testament, "hell" is the translation of these words,

1. G86 ᾅδης (hadēs)
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

2. G1067 γέεννα (geenna)
Of Hebrew origin ([H1516] and [H2011]); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.

3. G5020 ταρταρόω (tartaroō): From Τάρταρος Tartaros̄ (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: - cast down to hell.

In the light of the foregoing the difference between:
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (hadēs), neither his flesh did see corruption. (Act 2:31)
. . .and. . .
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell(geenna).
(Mat 10:28)
. . .becomes clearer. Also notice how these two verses differentiate between soul and body (flesh).

. . .


Hades basically means "the unseen place". Many scriptures there are that make allusion to the abode of the dead.

. . .

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. (Luk 16:23)
The rich man is remorseful but his choice is fixed, nonetheless he expresses this wish:
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. (Luk 16:27-30)

. . .

Hades is not the Lake of Fire. Hades is the place the dead go to. The Lake of Fire is the place of final punishment. According to Jesus, hades is a place of torment for the unrighteous, but for the righteous it is not. Simple. Your human logic will lead you astray.

. . .

I will leave you with this:
1. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (Deu 34:5)
2. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (Luk 9:30)
3. Moses died --- we know and yet we see Moses here conversing with Jesus, an event attested to by all three synoptic gospels.
4. [size=16pt]Where did Moses appear from?[/size]
5. Here is a hint: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (Joh 3:13)

^
Quit running around in circles, will ya? The problem here is your propensity to swing from one extreme position to another extreme position. You are basically lost in translation and have built your opinion on an inadequate English word.

The word Hell is one English word that translates three Greek ones: hades, gehenna and tartaros. In the New Testament, "hell" is the translation of these words,

1. Hades, used eleven times in the New Testament, and only once translated "grave" in the KJV in 1 Cor 15:55.
Total KJV Occurrences: 11
hell, 10
Mat 11:23, Mat 16:18, Luk 10:15, Luk 16:23, Act 2:27, Act 2:31, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20:13-14 (2)
grave, 1
1 Co 15:55

2. Gehenna, the word most frequently used, (occurring twelve times), in the New Testament for the place of future punishment is Gehenna or Gehenna of fire.
Total KJV Occurrences: 12
hell, 12
Mat 5:22, Mat 5:29-30 (2), Mat 10:28, Mat 18:9, Mat 23:15, Mat 23:33, Mar 9:43, Mar 9:45, Mar 9:47, Jam 3:5-6 (2)

3. Tartaros. Occurs once in 2 Pet 2:4.

These words are different but the nuances are lost by subsuming them in just one English word:

1. G86 ᾅδης (hadēs)
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

2. G1067 γέεννα (geenna)
Of Hebrew origin ([H1516] and [H2011]); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.

3. G5020 ταρταρόω (tartaroō): From Τάρταρος Tartaros̄ (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: - cast down to hell.

In the light of the foregoing the difference between:
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (hadēs), neither his flesh did see corruption. (Act 2:31)
. . .and. . .
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell(geenna).
(Mat 10:28)
. . .becomes clearer. Also notice how these two verses differentiate between soul and body (flesh).

frosbel: How can ,in your own opinion, a pre-existing place called hell and burning with fire be cast into the lake of fire ?

^Surely you can't be blind! It is written:
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev 20:14)

frosbel: This is exactly what Catholics have preached for millennia portraying GOD as a vindictive sadist. God punishes, he is not in the business of torture.
Wrong !!

Catholics! Vindictive sadist! Stop being unduly emotive. God punishes sin. If by torture you mean torment, I can't help you there for it is written:
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Rev 14:10-11)

frosbel: Normally scripture backs up scripture, so show me another verse from the old to new testament that backs up your claim .

^
Hades basically means "the unseen place". Many scriptures there are that make allusion to the abode of the dead.

frosbel: So you really believe that relatives who were saved looked upon their relatives who were not saved , roasting in the hell you mention , I am truly amazed that you are holding unto this 'straw'.

^
Another emotional argument. As it is written clearly with equivocation:
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. (Luk 16:23)
The rich man is remorseful but his choice is fixed, nonetheless he expresses this wish:
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. (Luk 16:27-30)

frosbel: Wrong again, I very well understand the difference between hades and hell. Hell is actually the lake of fire, a future event while hades is the grave , simples. In the old testament , hades is called Sheol.

Your sentence for it to be correct should read "I very well understand the difference between hades (tr. hell) and gehenna (tr. hell)". So clearly you are still in some confusion in this regard.

frosbel: Nothing happens in the grave.

"because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay." - Acts 2:27

^
Certainly nothing that you are aware of. And at least for Jesus, this happened: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1Pe 3:19-20)

frosbel: You are repeating my point here, why are they out and about while man is burning in your re-defined hades ?, does this make sense to you, what does the bible say on this matter. You are simply depicting Catholic imagery of afterlife.

^
Your obsession with all things Catholic leads your off. Again I repeat:
Hades is not the Lake of Fire. Hades is the place the dead go to. The Lake of Fire is the place of final punishment. According to Jesus, hades is a place of torment for the unrighteous, but for the righteous it is not. Simple. Your human logic will lead you astray.

frosbel: I have to say , I have quoted quite a number of scripture to support my stance, yet you throw logic out of the window to come to the erroneous conclusion that there are people in heaven right now and hell ( burning ). This is false.

None that you quoted has a direct bearing. None contradicts the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The Bible trumps frosbel's logic.

I will leave you with this:
1. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (Deu 34:5)
2. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (Luk 9:30)
3. Moses died --- we know and yet we see Moses here conversing with Jesus, an event attested to by all three synoptic gospels.
4. Where did Moses appear from?
5. Here is a hint: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (Joh 3:13)

frosbel: Hell does not exist now

^
And what scripture supports this opinion of yours? The Lake of Fire in Revelation is different from Hell. The word translated Hell is hadēs. . .the same hadēs that in Revelation 20 is cast into the Lake of Fire.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev 20:14)

In the story of the rich man and Lazarus Jesus momentarily lifts the veil and allows us to peer as it were beyond death. . .and we see the rich man and Lazarus separated by "a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." This description shows that hadēs (hell) is not the place of everlasting fire --- else Abraham and Lazarus would not be in shouting distance of the place.

frosbel: Judgement precedes punishment not the other way round, you are not making any sense.

^
After death comes judgement. . .but hell is the "holding cell" for the disobedient before judgement.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;(2Pe 2:4)

Your confusion arises from the error that most Christians make in interchanging hell (hadēs) with the everlasting fire that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25.

frosbel: Even the demons in this miracle asked Jesus if he was coming to torment them before their time.

"And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" - Matthew 8:29

^
Already alluded to Matthew 25. Here is the scripture:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Mat 25:41)

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev 20:10)

Thus you see what the demons were afraid of. And there is an appointed time for that event as seen in Revelation.

frosbel: Are you telling me that these demons are more righteous than man and are therefore free from Hell for now , while man who they deceived is burning, does not sound logical and it is not scriptural.

Forget about Egos now and look at reality.

^
No ego here. Leave aside emotional arguments and do not obfuscate the clarity of the Bible with human logic.

frosbel: Is the 'Rich Man ' a name ?

frosbel: Still waiting for the rich man's name !

^
Why are you coming off like one who does not read?

aletheia: ^
Are Jesus' parables untrue stories? Your assumption that if it's a parable, then it's untrue is incorrect. Here is a story told by Jesus that mentions two people by name and is a quite clear rendition of what transpires following the death of two men. His disciples had no difficulty understanding this story and did not allegorize it. . .whence cometh thine confusion?

aletheia: ^
Calm down and stop hastening to reply. Lazarus and Abraham. . .makes "two people by name".

. . .as for the rich man's name. . .you will wait until Jesus returns.

Now focus. . .

aletheia: . . .just one problem with the OP's premise:

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
(Luk 16:22-26)

. . .it is clear from Jesus' words that both men died and were buried. Jesus shows us what transpired between these two after death. If a choice be made between Jesus' actual words and some other conjecture, it is clear where the truth lies.

P.S. That one is named John Wesley or William Tyndale does not make one's words Holy Writ.

frosbel: Is the 'Rich Man ' a name ?

^
Calm down and stop hastening to reply. Lazarus and Abraham. . .makes "two people by name".

frosbel: Jesus Christ often spoke in parables, this story was one among a number , which he told in the same chapter.

To now suggest that the rest are parables while this is a true story is not correct.

^
Are Jesus' parables untrue stories? Your assumption that if it's a parable, then it's untrue is incorrect. Here is a story told by Jesus that mentions two people by name and is a quite clear rendition of what transpires following the death of two men. His disciples had no difficulty understanding this story and did not allegorize it. . .whence cometh thine confusion?

logicboy01: That was a meaningless thread. I probably became less intelligent by reading it.

^
You are such a transparently obvious child.