₦airaland Forum

2Legit2Qui abi wetin yah call yahself.

I've been living in the UK for 5 years and wouldn't trade it for anything (ok, maybe life in Canada or Australia). I'm proud to be a Nigerian and surely there is no place like home, and yea we go through challenges over here. But people in Nigeria go through challenges too.

But men, make I no lie, I enjoy better standard and quality of life over here than Naija. I couldn't have achieved all I have in Nigeria in 10yrs. Don't get me wrong people make it in Naija big time, but when I look at my peers, I am very grateful to God for giving me the opportunity to experience life in the Diaspora.

It's all relative though, if one person finds it hard to break through the system, or say a hundred thousands, that doesn't mean it's the same for all Nigerians in the UK. I'm sure you're not a lonely jobless dude though, so please don't sound like one. The only thing me I miss die na "Kilishi - Northern Dried meat", hmm , yummy

roast in fire, after 400degrees in oven, then slice and dice to eat. I'm dead serious man!

OLAADEGBU:
You are right, wine, indeed is a mocker.

Do not be Deceived
Proverbs 20:1-15

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." -- Proverbs 20:1

A group of Dutch scientists, according to a research published in April 2009 in the journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, claim that people who drink half a glass of wine a day live four years longer than people who do not drink alcohol.  Their claim is strange and misleading because it failed to highlight the statistics of untimely deaths caused by drunk drivers and suppressed the problem of addiction which has become the hallmark of alcoholism today.

Wine, as portayed in our text has deceived many; it does not only overcome them before they are aware, it promises them certain pleasures which it does not give.  Drunkenness results in pain and mockery and exposes people to reproach, disgrace and derision.  Alcohol sets people to scoff at their companions and even to mock at religion, and all that is good and serious (Hosea 7:5).  Strong drink not only disturbs the brain, it makes a man rage and quarrelsome.

To some college students, heavy drinking that leads to vomitting is not alcohol abuse but simply "having a good time" and being "one of the gang"; this has claimed the lives of many who die through accidents.  Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is another irreversible condition associated with consumption of alcohol by pregnant women.  Each and every case of FAS is a needless tragedy.  Victims suffer serious physical deformities and often mental deficiencies.  And they suffer these problems for their entire lives.  Numerous other health problems are associated with alcohol consumption, which should be avoided.

Many people find organised programmes very useful in helping them reduce their consumption to moderate levels.  One of such best known programmes is Moderation Managmemt.  For those who need to quit drinking entirely, Jesus remains the only answer.  His blood will miraculously deliver you from alcohol addiction more than any rehabilitaion centre can do.

Your happiness is not in a bottle but in the Blood of the Lamb.

Honestly and no offence to Olaadegbu, some christians just googlesearch, sorry I meant biblesearch for keywords, extract the verses that looks good to them and fantom pulpit messages from it.

Olaadegbu, you've quoted scriptures where excess "wine" was shown as unacceptable. Have you considered reading passages like: Lev 23:13 where wine[Yayin] was asked to be use as sacrifice to God? Have you studied Numbers 6 where God gave the Nazarites what not to do during period of consecration? particularly verse 3 where God laid out what not to drink? Yayin[wine], Shekar[strong drink], Chomets[vinegar], Mishrah[juice]? Why did God include grape juice not to drink during period of consecration? Have you read Prov 31:4 and considered the difference between Yayin[wine] and Shekar[liquor/strong drink]?
Proverbs 31:4,
NAS version: "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine(Yayin), Or for rulers to desire strong drink(Shekar)" - Shekar means intoxicating liquor as in beer.
NLT version: "And it is not for kings, O Lemuel, to guzzle wine. Rulers should not crave liquor." - guzzle means to To drink greedily, excessively or habitually.

You didn't even bother to quote nor explain your understanding of 1 Tim 5:23 "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." Can you even explain why the wine in Matt 26:29 differs from John 2:9 and Luke 7:34? Why are people in NT being called drunkard or that they get drunk having imbibed juice?
Did you even go through Image123's referenced url at all? http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html

I suggest you start with Image123's referenced url before posting anything next.

OLAADEGBU:
"Thus says the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." -- Isaiah 65:8

Just as the new wine or sweet juice in the cluster is valued and preserved for use, so God will preserve a remnant of Israel to be blessed in the eternal society under the Messiah.  The juice or grapes being called wine while still in the cluster shows that all wine referred to was not necessarily fermented or intoxicating.  The fact that God was glorified (John 2:11) in the hearts of the participants of the wedding feast when Jesus turned water into "wine" shows us the kind of wine Jesus created miraculously.  I have not seen any people glorify God after binging on intoxicated drinks.

so their hearts were glad enough so as to get drunk with orange juice!?

Na wa o, so God said he will not destroy his servants because no one destroys new wine found in the cluster. What has that got to do with the type of wine Christ turned water into, which would have made people got drunk? (if taken in excess ie.) NEW WINE is different from GOOD/BEST/CHOICE WINE in John 2, which could get people drunk!

I ask, which is CHEAPER? NEW WINE or OLD WINE?

Gamine:
Because all those other foods dont make you loose your senses.

yea right, doesn't matter if a man looses his heart or liver, or kidney. Man can even smoke cigarette till death for all we care and destroy his lungs by having cancer, as long as he doesn't loose his senses by taking alcohol, then that's ok, what a load of old toss!

stede:
alcohol is not good for the body

[b]

STUDIES involving tens of thousands of men and women have strongly suggested that moderate consumption of alcohol can reduce the risk of heart attacks. But how? One mechanism seems to be an alcohol-induced increase in protective high-density-lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, which helps to keep arteries free of fatty deposits.

A new study by researchers at University Hospital in Zurich points to another important mechanism: reducing the growth of arterial muscle cells that would normally occur after eating a high-fat meal. These cells are big factors in the production of atherosclerosis, a narrowing of the passageways through coronary arteries that is the underlying cause of most heart attacks.

The study, directed by Dr. Wilhelm Vetter and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, demonstrated that consuming the alcohol equivalent of two glasses of wine or three beers along with a high-fat meal containing butter reduced by 20 percent the ability of a person's blood to stimulate growth of arterial muscle cells.

The researchers pointed out that ''considering the amount of time humans spend in the postprandial state during their lifetimes, these findings may be of great importance in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis.''

They cautioned, however, that their finding should not be taken as an endorsement to control heart disease by consuming alcohol. Instead, they recommended controlling cardiovascular risk factors, which include high blood pressure, elevated blood levels of cholesterol or homocysteine, cigarette smoking, obesity and lack of physical exercise.

By JANE E. BRODY, New York Times
Published: Tuesday, April 7, 1998

[/b]

Image, when you say "They HAVE drunk" you need to add an object to make a perfect simple tense, because you've used an auxiliary verb with a past participle verb. Someone opens the door now, and shouted "They HAVE drunk"; the first question I will ask is what HAVE they drank/drunk? However, someone opens the door now, and shouted "They ARE drunk"; The message is clearly what it is.

let me spell out John 2:10 in American Standard Version Bible:
"and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now."

so, say someone opens the door now, and shouted "They HAVE drunk GOOD WINE", let's assume GOOD WINE is fresh grape juice. So what is INFERIOR/LESS-EXPENSIVE/WORSE/CHEAPER/POORER/NOT-SO-GOOD WINE? intoxicable drink? I don't think so. In the context of John 2:10; at least we both agree What they "HAVE DRUNK FREELY" refer to here, is the GOOD/BEST/CHOICE WINE. This is not the same as "NEW" o! New wine is freshly produced juice, Old wine is one which have either been induced by catalytic enzymes to ferment, or just left alone to ferment over a period of time. I would have thought OLD WINES are more EXPENSIVE than NEW WINES. Why? Because it takes something extra to produce OLD WINES.

Even the link you sent me http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html confirms WINE can refer to intoxicating or non-intoxicating drink.  I did mention Yayin, Oinos in my previous posts right? and Dr Samuel focused on these 2 biblical Hebrew and Greek words for wine.

The very first example of the use of yayin in Scripture describes the intoxicating effects of fermented wine: "Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine [yayin] and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent" (Gen 9:20, 21).

The noun yayin is the most frequently used word for wine in the Old Testament, fully 141 times. As already noticed, there is an apparent inconsistency in the use of this word, since sometimes it receives God’s approval and sometimes His disapproval. The reason for this will become apparent by looking at some examples where yayin obviously means fermented, intoxicating wine and at others where it means unfermented grape juice.

About the greek word Oinos, Dr Samuele said

One of the clearest examples of the use of oinos as intoxicating wine, is found in Ephesians 5:18: "And do not get drunk with wine [oinos], for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit."

What is debauchery here: Oinos itself? or getting drunk with Oinos?

That means wine[oinos] can make someone "drunk"! (ofcourse he stated also that wine[oinos] can refer to non-intoxicating wine); but something has to be intoxicating to make someone drunk! - Dr Samuele said there are different kinds of yayin ,  new, old and very old. He didn't differentiate between GOOD/BEST/CHOICE and POORER/WORSE/CHEAPER yayin. Also, why would the people in Luke 7 call christ a drunkard for taking non-intoxicating beverage? It doesn't make any sense! You only call someone (allbeit exaggeration) a drunkard because they've consumed an intoxicating drink!

In a nutshell, Christ drank an intoxicating drink in moderation, let's not beat around the bush no more!

If you don't believe in religion, why call it shit? If you don't believe or have faith in a woman for life partnership, why call her shit? Isn't one man's food anothers' poison? Can what doesn't work for one not work for another?

noetic15:
lol. . here comes the wolves

Don't worry, God will save you from them all! lol!

Deep Sight:
Ha ha. . . escapist. . . because that's just like saying: "Since i dont know who gave birth to Leonardo Da Vinci, then, the Mona Lisa had no Painter, and came into existence by itself"

hahahahaha This is wickedly funny!

wirinet:
I am not trying to convince you of anything. Trying to show a religious fundamentalist proof of evolution is as difficult as trying to show the police IG proof that Ribadu visited Gani's house. What ever proof you bring will be discarded.  but if you want science fact, then i must tell you that that evolutions has tons of proof. You might not agree with some of the proofs but to claim that evolution has no proof is absurd. Evolution had been studied in universities around the world for over 200 years and the process has been substantially understood, although there are still many gray areas scientists are still debating.

Evolution of living things have nothing to do with the formation of the sun or the universe. For that you have to venture into the field of Astronomy or cosmology. The same way the evolution of computers has little to do with how electricity was discovered.
Finally hydrogen is the building block of the universe, infact the universe is still some 78% hydrogen. All other elements were derived from hydrogen.

Thanks Wirinet, I'm not seeking to dispute Evolution as a Theory, in fact, I've found it's studies very interesting. Now I know that Evolution can't explain what was, before the formation of the earth and how the earth was formed. I just want to move up the scale if you know what I mean, something Religion and TOE can't provide. I will look more into Astronomy, parapsychology and cosmology, it's a good thing I will be doing some meteorological satellite systems and design of satellite payload study this year.

Could Evolution itself be an intellectual work of "THE GOD"; even the "THE BIG BANG" must be created by something, I mean, things don't just exist from non-existence. Anyways, thanks for your help, I shall further my studies in this line, it'll be nice to know where those hydrogen molecules came from to cause a "BIG BANG" which led to the formation of the universe.

Tudór:
I asked you what TOE has to do with the formation of the sun, you reply asking me the same question. . . .haba, have you been kissed by noetic lately?

Tudor Baba, you're the first to make me laugh this morning, thanks man.
I am not an Evolutionist, I just love to seek knowledge, to know stuffs. I asked because, either to know or to clarify.

In this case to know, I am thinking TOE can't explain the formation of the Earth and the root formation of SUN itself. I assume this is your answer, if yes I agree, otherwise please correct me. I seek a knowledge which is therefore beyond Evolution, a knowledge that can explain exactly how those giant hydrogen molecular clouds came to being, and how they formed the SUN. If as an Evolutionist, you have don't have answer to this, then TOE can't explain how existence came into being from non-existence. That is the Holy Grail that I seek.

Image123:
Allta, i didn't say adjective 'drunk' ONLY refers to intoxication. I said a verb 'drunk' in John 2 is not and does not refer to intoxication. It refers to an action of drinking(intake of liquid), a past participle.
'They HAVE well drunk' is different from 'They ARE well drunk.' this is normal simple english, there's no need for us to read our biases into this.

C'mon man, 'They HAVE well drunk' is different from 'They ARE well drunk.' In the former, HAVE is not a main verb, it's auxiliary - because it doesn't connote possession, as in "I HAVE 10 goats" - then HAVE is a main verb here, not auxiliary.
For you to make a perfect simple tense with any auxiliary verb, you need a past participle form of verb, eg. EATEN, DRUNK etc. "I HAVE eaten plenty rice today"; "I HAVE drunk many bottles today" - this last drunk I used, is a form without intoxication because it's got an Object. Please refer to my previous post! But when you use drunk without an Object then you refer to "intoxication"!

"They ARE well drunk" -  THEY - Subject; ARE - Verb which is the plural form of is; well - only describes the pp-verb DRUNK. "TUNJI is DRUNK". This is obviously a present simple tense. So "They ARE well drunk" demonstrates the present state of THEY, which is DRUNK, well DRUNK!

What gives "Drunk" the meaning of intoxication is the absence of an Object - please refer to your dictionary. The difference between HAVE and ARE as you've used is while the former is used in a perfect simple tense, the latter is used in a present simple tense.

Image123:
And mind you, the people of Jesus' don't know stuff about %alcoholic content. What they know is new and old, good and worse. It is common knowledge that grape juice ferments if unattended to, so what is termed as new wine may as well have alcoholic content, too much of which can lead to intoxication.

You're spot on here, 100%. However, the people of Jesus' prefer old wine to new wine, good than worse. John 2:10 and Luke 5:39

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Image123:
As I've consistently maintained, it is the low alcoholic content that we should consider, not just that Jesus took wine,Jesus took wine. What type? Is it vodka,satzenbrau or kaikai

A type, which if too much is taken can lead to intoxication. Ok, if I jam you for a party now, see you taking 50 bottles of orange juice while others around you are taking kaikai, can I call you a drunkard afterwards? Can I say: "This man is Drunk"? or "Those guys ARE drunk"? NO, because 100bottles of orange juice can not intoxicate you or make you a drunkard, even though people around you are. But I can say: "This man has well drank/drunk orange juice"; or "Those guys have well drank/drunk orange juice!" This is because I've specified the Object - orange juice, and I did this, to emphasise exclusively that they aren't drunk of an intoxicant.

If I see you at a party consuming 50 bottles of alcohol(whatever percentage); even if others are drinking orange juice, can I call you a drunkard afterwards? YES. For me to exaggerate, you need to consume alcohol, if it were orange juice, then that means I've lied by calling you a drunkard. Ofcourse Christ was never a drunkard because his drinking never affected his physical or mental faculties as far as the Bible is concerned. This is a very good example of moderate consumption of intoxicated drink to me. Some people can get drunk with 5 bottles of white wine, some only need 2 glasses.

Btw, Christ never strictly lived his life to please the Jews, in fact they kept rumbling and mumbling.

Check out Mathew Henry's Commentary on Luke 7:34

They still found something or other to carp at.
John Baptist was a reserved austere man, lived much in solitude, and ought to have been admired for being such a humble, sober, self-denying man, and hearkened to as a man of thought and contemplation; but this, which was his praise, was turned to his reproach. Because he came neither eating nor drinking, so freely, plentifully, and cheerfully, as others did, you say, "He has a devil; he is a melancholy man, he is possessed, as the demoniac whose dwelling was among the tombs, though he be not quite so wild."
Our Lord Jesus was of a more free and open conversation; he came eating and drinking, Luke 7:34. He would go and dine with Pharisees, though he knew they did not care for him; and with publicans, though he knew they were no credit to him; yet, in hopes of doing good both to the one and the other, he conversed familiarly with them. By this it appears that the ministers of Christ may be of very different tempers and dispositions, very different ways of preaching and living, and yet all good and useful; diversity of gifts, but each given to profit withal. Therefore none must make themselves a standard to all others, nor judge hardly of those that do not do just as they do. John Baptist bore witness to Christ, and Christ applauded John Baptist, though they were the reverse of each other in their way of living. But the common enemies of them both reproached them both. The very same men that had represented John as crazed in his intellects, because he came neither eating nor drinking, represented our Lord Jesus as corrupt in his morals, because he came eating and drinking; he is a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber. Ill-will never speaks well. See the malice of wicked people, and how they put the worst construction upon every thing they meet with in the gospel, and in the preachers and professors of it; and hereby they think to depreciate them, but really destroy themselves.

Clearly Jesus was indulging in a form of drinking and eating which doesn't please the Jews! So, can we now say Jesus drank wine like Jews did? Jesus ate food like Jews did? I'm not saying Jesus didn't drink fresh grape juice, in fact this was used at the last supper as opposed to something intoxicating. I've giving the Greek words for those, please refer to my previous posts. Many Thanks

Tudór:
^
What does the theory of evolution have to do with the formation of the sun?

The history of Earth has always been core/root to explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Can Evolution, or does Evolution explain how the Earth came by? If yes, and if it has anything to do with the SUN, then does Evolution explains where/how the SUN was formed? If yes. and if it's from the hydrogen/giant molecular clouds, then how were those formed?
Can Evolution explain the true origin of existence? of life? Or maybe there was no life 4600 Megaannum years ago on Earth, before the gravitational pull of the MOON from the collision between planet Earth and planet Theia. If Evolution can't explain the source of planet Earth, planet Theia, the SUN, and most importantly the hydrogen molecular clouds, then what can?

@Atheists or other Evolutionists in the house, I'm still waiting for the answer to my question:

IMO, Evolution has no physical proof of origin, just as there is no "physical proof of God", not yet anyways. If you think Evolution is complete, then where did the Sun comes from? formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed? what's the origin of those hydrogen molecular clouds?

The formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

What's the origin of this giant molecular cloud?

Atheists:
@Alta
It is an well known and established fact that the first pope of the church of Rome was St Peter. The mere fact that it is not written in the bible does not make it false.

Established by the Catholic Church but not proven from the Bible, surely not? If Peter was the soverign head (bishop of rome); how come Paul opposed Peter to his face? How come Peter was wrong as a sovereign pope over the Church in Rome? I mean, who could try such a thing in modern times? How can the "Head" not act in line with the truth of the gospel? Paul even referred Peter to as having hypocrisy. I'm not saying popes are meant to be perfect, but their authority should never and ought not to be questioned within the Church in Rome.
Gal 2:11-14

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I(Paul) opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

The Fact that the Catholic Church tells us or establishes that Peter was their first Pope/Bishop doesn't make it the truth at all. Anything not in the Bible for me will always be questionable. And you're right not everything is in the Bible, but if Paul can question Peter's authority in the Bible, then IMO Peter is not a sovereign or governing head of the Church at the time.

Atheists:
The first pope is St Peter a disciple of Jesus
Source: Wikipedia

There is no evidence in the bible to even support this notion,  except for Matt 16:18, if the Catholic claims Peter is their first pope, then Protestants have the right to lay claims to Peter as well, and Christ as their founder. I know peeps will argue Catholic is the oldest Church; but don't forget that a pope is supposed to be elected by the College of Cardinals, who elected Peter? the other 11 disciples? Jesus? Assuming Peter was the head of the Christian community in Rome those days, what evidence thereis that the Church community, then, ran with the Catholic beliefs/doctrines? Isn't it amazing that they believe Christ founded Catholic Church? I stand to be corrected on this: Catholics do tithe, init? There is no evidence that Peter, Paul or the Christian community tithed in NT. Why must we then believe Catholic Church was instituted by Christ with Peter the pope?

Atheists:
I meant to say closest natural museums. By the way @ these museums they got lots of  evidence in support of  the theory of evolution. By have you ever wondered how flue vaccines and drugs are made ?

Maybe on my way, I will branch the national museum of catholic arts and history. I might find a statue of an Angel, Jesus, Mary, or even Elijah, Noah and perhaps Adam and Eve's. Oh! Maybe I might find the statues of dinosaurs more appealing, or perhaps a prokaryotes. Actually, they'll be able to show me a movie of how Earth was formed from the accretion disc revolving round the young Sun and perhaps how come Earth collided with Theia to form moonlets. They might be able to show me how RNA was formed and how it developed into DNA.

IMO, Evolution has no physical proof of origin, just as there is no "physical proof of God", not yet anyways. If you think Evolution is complete, then where did the Sun comes from? formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed? what's the origin of those hydrogen molecular clouds?

The formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

What's the origin of this giant molecular cloud?

KunleOshob:
@Allta
What do you think is man's true destiny? What is our purpose in existence and our role in the cosmos?

@KunleOshob
Man's true destiny is directly linked to the purpose of his origin. If Eve/Adam didn't fall, and mankind didn't eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil, then man would have lived for ever. Why? Answer is embedded in Gen 2:9

Gen 2:9b
Amplified version

the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of [the difference between] good and evil and blessing and calamity.

New Century Version

In the middle of the garden, God put the tree that gives life and also the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil.

Ofcourse, man was asked to eat of every tree but the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Gen 2:7b

When God created man, He breathed the breath of life into the man's nose, and the man became a living person.

So, God breathed life into man's nose, man became a living person. Then God planted a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden with other trees ofcourse. Could this be a means of sustaining man's life for eternity? From Gen 2:9 - man wasn't restricted from eating the Tree of Life, so he was allowed to, perhaps he ate from the Tree of life which kept sustaining his livelihood? NAS Strong's Number word for life (as used in Gen2:9b) is Chayay - surprisingly a verb, which means to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health. Which means that Tree of life is doing something, it's sustaining the life in man. Ironically, the main reason God "drove" man away from the Garden is because, God didn't want man to live forever with that knowledge of differentiating between what is good and what is evil. God wanted eternity for man, but not God's kind of eternity. Apparently, GOD or "THE TRINITY" wants to remain being the "MOST HIGH" ,  the only everlasting entity who can differentiate between what is good from what is evil. So, he had to drive man away before man could eat again from the Tree of Life.

THE MESSAGE Bible Version of Gen 3:22

GOD said, "The Man has become like one of us, capable of knowing everything, ranging from good to evil. What if he now should reach out and take fruit from the Tree-of-Life and eat, and live forever? Never--this cannot happen!"

But let's concentrate on man's life before "falling" in Eden. The question is, why does God need to sustain man (before falling) for eternity? What can man do to/for God in eternity that God can't get from the angels? Why does "THE GOD" really need man, can God do without us? Do we do something to him that makes him complete? Even after man's fall in the Garden, "GOD" sent his "SON" to die on the cross that we might be redeemed, just because of restoring us back in line with our destiny - our purpose, so that sometime, the knowledge between good and evil will no more be in man. So that sometime, mankind will once again become innocent like he was before falling in Eden, like new babies/children who doesn't know the difference between good and evil.

Personally, I believe God created man so he can have a "being" in his image, whose worship he can relate with or enjoy. It's like MAN relating with or receiving worship from his copy/image in a mirror. One could have said, what about angels; I see angels as sons, they do what their "father" asks of them without even questioning him. It's like they don't have "Classified Access" to GOD, similar to a servant's. We're like bride to God in comparison with Angel's position in the hierarchy. Remember, although we're adopted as SONS at salvation, but Christ will take us as BRIDES at his return. God actively seeks something much closer than a son to a father, or a servant to a master. He seeks the kind of relationship that exists between a bride and a bridegroom. The only way to get that is between MAN and GOD. MAN was created to Worship God, he slipped, God drove him away from Eden, MAN became even more sinful (Gen 6:5-7), dragging further away from God. Then the Lord said,

"I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky -- for I regret that I made them."

Thank God for Noah and his Ark.

The stories goes on and on and on. I believe Gen 4 to NT has always been about reconciliation, returning man back to the place he ought to be. A place God wanted him to be, a place of true worship.
John 4:23 New Century Version: when Jesus was speaking to that woman ,

The time is coming when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, and that time is here already. You see, the Father too is actively seeking such people to worship him.

Why is God "actively seeking" true worshippers? - worshippers who engage their spirit in the pursuit of truth. He enjoys our worship? Does our worship makes him feel adored? elevated? "almightified"? I think GOD doesn't want ,  MAN = GOD; GOD wants to have that edge over MAN, there must be something extra, GOD = MAN+extra. GOD wants to remain ALMIGHTY. Does our worship completes him? Does MAN completes GOD?

lagerwhenindoubt:
Men are gods, if you think of it plainly

1: Exalted above the Angels, yet betrayed by own sins from Adam.
2: We can say what we want and actually have it come to pass (Like God only slower)
3: We are created in his likeness we are just retarded versions of God

I love this one bro. Jah Bless man.

@ Image123

I'm glad we're both singing from the same Hymn book as per "drunk" being past participle verb. For a second, let me agree with you that adjective "drunk" only refers to intoxication.

drunk is the pp of verb "drink", right? so you agree that "drunk" will mean the same thing as "drink", but the only thing difference is whether it was done in the past or present, right?

"Drink", when used as a verb, can either have an object or not.

"Drink" used with object: eg. I asked him to drink the liquid or He has drunk the liquid
- to take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow.
- to take in (a liquid) in any manner; absorb.

Also "Drink" can be used without an object: eg. He never drinks or They never drink or They won't find jobs until they stop drinking.
- to take water or other liquid into the mouth and swallow it; imbibe.
- to imbibe alcoholic drinks, esp. habitually or to excess; tipple.

The kind of Drink used in John 2 is clearly without an object. So it refers to imbibing alcoholic drinks, surely?
If I go to a party with a friend who doesn't take alcohol. If I get to the bar and barman offers to sell 2 bottles of Gulder, I will say "My friend doesn't drink, I will buy only 1 bottle please".
Some people don't drink orange/grape juice. If such arrive at the bar, can I say something like "He doesn't drink, I will buy only 1 bottle please"? Surely this will get the barman confused.

OK, let's look at another Bible Translation: THE MESSAGE:

"Everybody I know begins with their finest wines and after the guests have had their fill brings in the cheap stuff. But you've saved the best till now!"

Easy-to-Read Bible Version:

He said to the bridegroom, "People always serve the best wine first. Later, after the guests have become drunk, people serve the cheaper wine. But you have saved the best wine until now."

New Revised Standard:

and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now."

Amplified:

And said to him, Everyone else serves his best wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then he serves that which is not so good; but you have kept back the good wine until now!

Clearly drunk/drink here doesn't have an object.

Having said that, Christ drinks wine, a type in which if one consumes too much, can make people call you a drunkard/winebibber.

Think about it, if that wine can't intoxicate, as in if it's fresh grape juice, can drinking too much of it make people call you a drunkard or a drunk?

rabzy:
He said 'John came neither eating nor drinking'. John of course eats and drinks, but the bible says he eats Locusts and Honey, that must mean he eats just that or that he rarely eats other food, if he does eat other food occasionally, then Jesus must have been emphasizing his point by using a hyperbole.

@rabzy, here Jesus meant "Fasting" - periods where people neither eat or drink.

THE MESSAGE Bible Version:

John the Baptizer came fasting and you called him crazy.

NEW LIVING TRANSLATION:

For John the Baptist didn't drink wine and he often fasted, and you say, 'He's demon possessed.'

IMO, they think John is possessed with a demon as in crazy, because he often fasts, this is because, as I believe his style/mode of fasting is something they are not used to. So it sounds and looks crazy to them. For example, if someone came to you and said, I just finished my 200days(although this is not same as John's case o) of fasting without anything entering my mouth, you would think such a person isn't normal right?

Jagoon brought this post to my attention, before going deep into it. Let me first ask this: Can we say Man is a copy of God? As in when you make a copy of a video CD, you have the original, and then you have the copied CD. Could men have been copy of God with limited powers? We know GOD as ALMIGHTY, one of the dictionary definition of ALMIGHTY is "unlimited powers".

Maybe there are GODS out there, not as in gods, but the multiple entity of what we call GOD (that created the universe and all thereis out of nothing). Maybe Being Almighty, he decided to limit the amount of power his creatures have and then called them MEN!

Then God said: "Let us make "adam" in our image, after our likeness:

Amplified Bible

God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make adam in Our tselem, after Our D@muwth.

adam: mankind
tselem: image
d@muwth: to be like, resemble

First, God wasn't talking to angelic beings. Whatever exists before "MAN" can talk, speak,hear, be tired, can rest, can be angry, loving, jealous, just as we MEN do. The Bible says: GOD "says"

Second, Let Us, Amplified Bible adds Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God wasn't talking to the Angels, he was referring to "Trinity". What if the Trinity is actually like a union or a company or organisation of a Father, a Son, and another members of staff - the Holy Spirit". What if these "3" or like some say Trinity have equal share of the company which created the "Universe"?

Also, there were angels to worship this "GOD", but why did "GOD" even need to create man?; Why did he/the company need to create the universe that men dwell in now? Man literally translates to aw-dawm or 'adam in Hebrew. Yes, the first place the word adam was used in the Bible is Gen 1:26 and not in Gen 2:19

Thirdly, tselem and d@muwth. I think we are copies of "GOD" or an inseperable element of "Trinity"; but with limited powers and capabilities. tselem says image as in copies. Someone earlier said image as in mirror. I ask, can your mirror-image speak? can it move itself without you moving? can it talk without you talking? does it have minds of its own? The answers to these questions my people is NO. But think of image like copies, say SONY releases a prototype of a robot today, and another company decides to hijack this invention by stealing and then copying the technology. If you place the two robots side by side, you can't tell the difference can you? I believe this is how we translate to God's image. The only difference is in the intellectuality, the ability and capability, nothing close compared with "THE GOD". D@muwth means to be like, so adam(mankind) is like God with his/her own mind, feelings, reasoning and will which are all superseded by God's.

When God created man, man was naked and not ashamed. Ashamed is coined from the word shame.
Shame means: the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another.

God ask man not to do something, he created man perfectly without the ability to differentiate between what is good and what is bad. More or less like a new born baby, a new born baby is human, but doesn't know the difference between what is good and what is bad. To be ashamed requires you to know what you've done is wrong/evil and not good. Look at this:
Amplified Bible, Gen 3:5

For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity.

Why does "GOD" not want man to know the difference between good and evil? Could this be in man's ability to elevate or activate his intellectual arsenal of free-will? Would this activation then try to turn man away from "GOD" as in being rebellious? Does GOD really need and cherish man's (who is the only being made in his likeness to) worship, or rates man's worship higher than Angels because we are special in the sense that we are created with "Free-Will" which makes us a little higher than Angels in God's Love?

Will this "INTELECTUALITY OF FREE-WILL" someday bring us closer to "THE GOD"? as men gets closer to moon? or perhaps travel to Heaven? What if heaven is real, as in we can relate to it as we relate to earth? What if we have the parapsychological knowledge or technical know-how to travel to Heaven someday and then return back to earth?

According to Dr Ronald's Theories, the first subatomic information we can get from the future will come after the launch of our first successful Time Machine. This means there is no way to unhappen or avert 9/11 and Titanic. If Dr Ronald becomes successful with his project, then we might start seeing wicked unfolding of series of unexplainable subatomic particles from the future in his Time Machine. Hopefully with time, we can study the pattern and be able to decode those information. Have you also heard of the webbot project? http://urbansurvival.com/simplebots.htm Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Center Lane by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA?

hmm yea ,

But, if we have the ability to go back in time, or send an information back in time, then surely the piece of information will surface before the event in the past. Then relative to the time T when the information surfaced, the event has not yet happen.

So I guess, it's all down to our ability to send information about events, perhaps in a different universal space but back in time so that the people of old will get it before their events happen. This will then give them the knowledge to "avert" their own events before happening, rather than we "unhappen" their events for them.

I think when one "averts" something, it's the same as "unhappen" it. If Coren where to plant a bomb at that location, if McMoneagle didn't see it, or didn't do anything about it, then the explotion can't be averted (as in unhappened, because it will then "happen"; but if he sees it, and say, CIA does something about it, then they can avert it, as in they can "unhappen" the explosion.

hahahaha    Am I still talking rubbish? I feel so inhumane now, I tell you, don't even know whether I'm still sane or not! ****phew****

Perhaps laws of physics can't explain the practicality of some of these things, maybe parapsychology or some other form of study can. I really don't want to drift away from the point, but have you read about precognition, remote viewing or extrasensory parapshycology? If you've seen Minority Report, then you know exactly what I'm referring to.

Check this out:
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoclips/NatGeo/natgeo.html

I mean, how did the guy know where Coren was gonna be at "realtime"? Is this a normal experience?

KunleOshob:
The great scientist albert einstein once said that science is yet to understand one part of a thousandth of what nature as in store for us in other words what we know in science today is 0.0001% of what is available for us to know.

CIA and various military intelligence are already exploring and funding researches over the possibility of remote viewing. This is travelling through space with time almost constant. What if someday, this will be common in men, what if someday man will go beyond using his 4% brain capacity, uses over 80% of his brain capacity to develop a technology which can bend space-time region in other to send subatomic information, or even matter?

Joseph McMoneagle (born January 10, 1946, in Miami, Florida) was involved in Remote Viewing experiments conducted by U.S. Army Intelligence and the Stanford Research Institute. He was one of the original officers recruited for the top-secret program now known as the Stargate Project. Along with Ingo Swann, McMoneagle is best known for claims surrounding the investigation of Remote Viewing and the use of paranormal abilities for military intelligence gathering.

Can we completely nullify or dispute the possibility of McMoneagle's precognitive or remote viewing ability? How else can we explain this ability(asides the realm of spiritual)?

Deep Sight:
If this happens, will the 9/11 event now unhappen, and all the dead therein spring back to life?

Will the Titanic dead re-emerge or perhaps their descendants?

It's unthinkable. If time travel is possible, then certainly changing events in the past is not.

In "Real Time" and relative to the present, let's assume the past is just sequence of events which can't be changed, but in future lies the sequence of events that can be made by changing the present. That is people can change their present to make their future since the present is directly linked to the future.

Let me explain, a Lagos based job-seeker wakes up and receives 2 phone calls that he's got an offer for job with 2 different companies, say Company A is in Lagos, and Company B is in London. He has a decision to make, a decision that will ultimately shape/change his future. He changes his present by going with the London based Company, and has to leave Nigeria and start living in the UK. This shows that people can indirectly change their future by changing their present.

Assuming it was practical to time travel to the past, at least by sending information. Then "THE PAST" to the piece of information in 2009, becomes the "THE PRESENT" in 2001. If someone could interprete such message, then it will altimately utter the future of "THE PAST". So there wouldn't be 9/11 attack, so many people wouldn't loose their lives etc. and there will proceed, a total different set/stream of events in the world. Maybe there wouldn't be a war in iRaq, maybe iRan wouldn't be motivated to pursue their nuclear weapon. etc.

Now Relative to "THE PRESENT", if say FBI or Mi6 gets a tip today that someone was about to bomb BA at 10:00am, they've got to do something at 09:30am to avert the catastrophe. If they fold their alms now, people will die, and you have some "stream of events" which will follow. If they act now, people will not die, and you will have another "stream or set of events" to follow suite. What this implies is that, someone who will be considered dead in 2010 could still be alive if FBI/Mi6 decides to act today in 2009. If they refused to act, then those people die in the future.

Another example from the bible, God sent a Isaiah to a king Hezekiah that he will surely die unless he puts his house in order. His future relative to 2 Kings 20:1's present was to die, but he did something, he prayed and God changed his future by adding extra 15 years to his life. If he didn't do something about it, he could have died, but he did something about it and lived for another 15years. If someone got a tip about 9/11 and did something about it, people will not die but will live thereafter.

The Future is a stream of parallel events which can be altered, similar to results of a series(eg. Fourier) by altering some variable components of the present. However, relative to the present, the past can't be changed before we build our first Time Machine. To send information or matter to a pre-firstTM will definitely require some form of energy/technology which is out of this world.

hahahaha OgagaLuv

Spare!

Deep Sight:
^^^ Allta - matter will always have weight once the planet you are talking about has a magnetic core that provides sufficient gravitational pull for life to subsist therein.

And, weightless or not, have you really considered what it will mean to bend space-time? Have you considered that it will doubtless mean massive disruptive movements all matter including planets, stars and galaxies. . . are you aware that even minute cosmological movements could be disastrous, not to talk about bending the element in which everything is contained? ? ?

You are talking about rippping apart the universe!

In reality, it's impossible, I agree.

What if the universe doesn't have to move? what if we have parallel universes and blackholes between them? Have you seen the Movie: "The One (2001) - Jet li"? This is what I refer to by having parallel universes.
This is indeed fictional today, but impossible 1000years from now? I don't think so. The furthest we can travel to the past is relative to the time the first TTMachine was launched. If we can't send matter through these holes, can we send information via subatomic particles, neutrons? Can someone in the future send us the cure for AIDS the very first day we launch our own TTMachine? Dr

What if truely extraterrestials exist, what if they already have built their own TTMachine 1000years ago, what if we can use such machine someday and send information back in time to warn the Titanic Captains or prevent the 9/11 attacks?

Dr. Ronald L. Mallett is a modern physicist who has embarked on the idea of using light to create and control gravity. Ofcourse we know gravity influences or affects time, apparently Dr. Ronald believes light can actually be used somehow to alter the space and time region.
[url]http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/appearances.htm[/url]

Dr. Ronald said: In Einstein's general theory of relativity, both matter and energy can create a gravitational field. This means that the energy of a light beam can produce a gravitational field. His current research considers both the weak and strong gravitational fields produced by a single continuously circulating unidirectional beam of light. In the weak gravitational field of a unidirectional ring laser, it is predicted that a spinning neutral particle, when placed in the ring, is dragged around by the resulting gravitational field.

In a later paper, he argued that at sufficient energies, the circulating laser might produce not just frame-dragging but also closed timelike curves, allowing time travel into the past: For the strong gravitational field of a circulating cylinder of light, he found new exact solutions of the Einstein field equations for the exterior and interior gravitational fields of the light cylinder. The exterior gravitational field is shown to contain closed timelike lines. The presence of closed timelike lines indicates the possibility of time travel into the past. This creates the foundation for a time machine based on a circulating cylinder of light.

At this point, I might be talking jargons, but thank God the concept of Time travelling itself is a jargon. 

I love this thread, and believe me I've learnt a lot, and want to keep learning. What's your take on Dr. Ronald's Theories?

Deep Sight:
Can it really be said that Space-Time can be bent as demonstrated, would that not have cataclysmic physical consequences for all matter existing within that Space-Time? ? ?

Someone has done it with packets of waves, no one has ever done it with matter though. Guys, seriously, you're dragging out of my comfort zone.

I'm not an Evolutionist by any chance and I stand to be corrected in case I go off radar. From the study of evolution, life itself began from somewhere around 3.8billion years ago. The earth itself is like 4.5billion years old and was formed from the accretion disc phenomenon revolving around the then Sun. There is a plausible theory that Earth collided with another Planet Theia which led to the formation of Moon. The gravitational pull of the new Moon stabilises the Earth's fluctuating axis of rotation and sets up the conditions in which life formed. The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. Then came the atmosphere, the oceans, Iron-Sulfide synthesis along deep ocean platelet boundaries may have led to the RNA(Ribonucleic Acid) world of competing organic compounds. Then was another large heavy bombardment which could have destroyed any form of life. Then came plausible theories that meteoroids might have brought some form of life back in form of prokaryotes cells. In short, life began from somewhere according to Evolution.

My point is this, Mass has weight only on earth, people say Mass is anything that has weight and occupies space, Mass doesn't have weight in the outerspace, and perhaps doesn't occupy space in a "Wormhole-inspired-World". We never knew there was outerspace until technology took us there. The atoms that make up your body were once a seething plasma, which cooled to form hydrogen atoms, which in turn were converted into heavier elements inside stars. Yet more elements were created when giant stars exploded.

What if Global warming gets so bad that man starts looking for alternative harbour, what if we get ourselves to a planet where mass doesn't weight anything, where the concept of time doesn't even make sense anymore? what if people starts postulating new theories relative to the existence of light or life in matter form on such a planet. What if matter can actually melt in such an environment and then resolidy again? What if?