₦airaland Forum

wirinet:
Mr Chrisbenogor, They are not assertions. Einsteins theories had been proven again and again. In fact the structure of the universe depends on them.

But with the concept of Traversable Wormholes, you don't have to travel more than the speed of light. Wormholes operate within the law of spatial relativity. Personally, I think there is more to life than Physics, there must be another yet-2-be-explored field of study which will open up possibilities that will question earlier fields of study. It might not be physics, it might be, I don't know.

Lijun Wang gave the appearance of causality violation by making it possible to send packages of waves through a bulb of caesium gas in such a way that the package appeared to exit the bulb 62 nanoseconds before its entry. Ofcourse it's nearly impossible in present times to achieve same result with any matter, energy or information, but who knows what will happen in year 3099? There will always be better scientists than Einstein and the Newtons of this world. People will still postulate theories and law that will defile or nullify Einsteins', Teslas', Newtons'. I personally don't think the end of science or any other field of study has come.

With Wormholes, sure at least in theory. Wormholes connect two points in spacetime, which means that they would in principle allow travel in time, as well as in space. In a 1988 paper, Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever worked out explicitly how to convert a wormhole traversing space into one traversing time. However, it has been said a time traversing wormhole cannot take you back to before it was made but this is disputed.

This means that one can journey through time (please see my quotes above) and suddenly appear in the past. Remember De-Javu film? Denzel went back in time and he actually did things which he already saw in the future. Sorry, let me explain again. Life or in this case, Time is a constant stream of linear relativity of events. There are two ways to use a traversable wormhole:
1.  One end of the wormhole is accelerated to some significant fraction of the speed of light, perhaps with some advanced propulsion system, and then brought back to the point of origin.
2.  Another way is to take one entrance of the wormhole and move it to within the gravitational field of an object that has higher gravity than the other entrance, and then return it to a position near the other entrance.

Time dilation causes the end of the wormhole that has been moved to have aged less than the stationary end, as seen by an external observer; however, time connects differently through the wormhole than outside it, so that synchronized clocks at either end of the wormhole will always remain synchronized as seen by an observer passing through the wormhole, no matter how the two ends move around. This means that an observer entering the accelerated end would exit the stationary end when the stationary end was the same age that the accelerated end had been at the moment before entry

Basically, if prior to entering the wormhole the observer noted that a clock at the accelerated end(Point A) read a date of 2007 while a clock at the stationary end(Point B) read 2012, then the observer would exit the stationary end when its clock also read 2007, a trip backwards in time as seen by other observers outside. One significant limitation of such a time machine is that it is only possible to go as far back in time as the initial creation of the machine, because the technology can't be transported through time.

In essence, in the year 2012 at stationary exit(Point B), you've moved back in time to 2007 at the stationary exit(Point B). Point B is your frame of reference for this Journey at all times! This means you can go back to 2007 at Point B, buy that white Cadillac you so much love rather than the red Lamborghini which you hated after buying.

Image123:
Now John2v10 says 'when men have well drunk'. My english teacher tell me that is different from 'when men are drunk'. Drunk in that sentence is not the adjective, well is. Drunk is a past participle verb meaning satisfied. Check it up. Goodnight

Sorry, just got the chance to chip in my reply.

If "well" is the adjective, then which noun is it describing? "men"? as in the "men" are well? as in ok/alright health wise? Common, or are you teasing me or what?

In "when men have well drunk", well is definitely describing "drunk"; as in how drunk they were, not lightly drunk, not fully drunk, but well drunk! as in a state of drunkenness which is enough. We can easily take out "well" the descriptor and the sentence will still make sense. Take out the "drunk" and see whether it will make sense? You dig?

"Drunk" in this statement is not the noun, it's actually a past participle verb like you mentioned, however it's got nothing to do with satisfaction, "well" does. Drunk is the past participle verb of Drink (a normal verb). Drank is the past tense of Drink. To Drink is to put something usually a liquid into your mouth and swallow it. if this was completed in past, then Drank is used. It doesn't matter whether you are satisfied or not, When You're Drunk, You're Drunk!!

Can you please make reference to a Dictionary that gives "satisfaction" as one of the meanings to "drunk/drink"? I bet you can't

But check out this reference:
Drunk occurs after a linking verb: He was not drunk, just jovial. The actor was drunk with success. The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol: Drunk drivers go to jail.

The standard and most frequent form of the past participle of drink in both speech and writing is drunk: Who has drunk all the milk? However, perhaps because of the association of drunk with intoxication, drank is widely used as a past participle in speech by educated persons and must be considered an alternate standard form: The tourists had drank their fill of the scenery.

****phew**** now I feel like one secondary school kid, hope I've impressed my English teacher(image123 ie.) to give me a pass mark.

First, let me start by saying nothing is impossible. Impossibility is relative to common sense, logic; think about it, it's in sane to even consider travelling through time, right? I mean, it's fictional as so many have potrayed, surely it has to, isn't it? Well, it's relative IMO. There were times when it's in sane to fly planes, to travel outside Earth. It was in sane to even consider travelling to other parts of the solar system. The concept of Solar system was in sane to some in those days.

When Tesla invented AC, people like Edison said he was in sane to have even considered it. "[Tesla's] ideas are splendid, but they are utterly impractical."; this is an inventor making such bold statement about another inventor who worked under him for some time. This same Tesla would have invented a means to transmit electricity over wireless/microwave media. It was in sane at the time, in fact, that pushed the boundary of common sense that one of his major investors ,  JP Morgan had to withdraw from the giant project. Tesla demonstrated the technology on a low scale, but because he was turned down everywhere he went for funds, he had to abandon the large scale project.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, the fact that something seems impractical today doesn't make it's impossible tomorrow. Yes, it is fictional, I agree, but so was AC in late 1880s, so was Wireless transmission of Electricity in 1893 when Tesla first demonstrated it at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

Back to the Post, I remember the first thing I learnt at the University in those days ,  frame of reference. The Prof taught us that frame of reference is always relative. A man sitting inside a Bus will appear static to another man sitting in the Bus; but to someone watching from outside the Bus, they will appear to be moving while the bus is. So the motion is relative to the viewer, and if you ask the other guy in the bus, there is no motion. This theory can be identified with spartial relativity proposed by Einstein in 1905.

Albert generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity–that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest, from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source

In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, c is fixed at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. According to Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, c is an important constant connecting space and time in the unified structure of spacetime. As such, it defines the conversion between mass and energy; and is an upper bound on the speed at which matter and information can travel. It is the speed of travel of all electromagnetic radiation in free space, and is believed to be the speed of gravitational waves. In an inertial frame of reference, light in vacuum always travels at c.

According to GBR, the fastest jet can travel at around 3.13Km/s, 100times faster than the speed of sound. Surely, there must be a time when people said, it's in sane to even consider travelling at the speed of sound (0.3Km/s). Now say, there is an invention that can transport man half the speed of light at about 150,000km/s. The distance from London to Lagos is about 5000Km, say I am able to use a plane that travels at half the speed of light, it will take be 0.033seconds. That means I will leave London at 11:00:00am and will arrive Lagos at 11:00:00.033; double that speed up to c and you will arrive in Lagos at 11:00:00.017; double it up again, one more time please ,  would you not say this is equal to disappearing and appearing as in form of magic? really? If we did have such super or ultraluminal  technology, then it wouldn't be considered magic, will it? But this will only help to travel at a speed faster than lightspeed, IMO which isn't Time Travel as in moving to the past or moving into the future.

Now, I'm really excited about what I want to mention next ,  Wormholes!: A theoretical concept/technology which would not require travelling faster than the speed of light  http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1;

In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time. Spacetime can be viewed as a 2D surface (or at least linear as believed by Newton) that, when 'folded' over, allows the formation of a wormhole bridge. A wormhole has at least two mouths that are connected to a single throat or tube. If the wormhole is traversable, matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat. While there is no observational evidence for wormholes, spacetimes containing wormholes are known to be valid solutions in general relativity.

It is argued that, if the laws of physics permit an advanced civilization to create and maintain a wormhole in space for interstellar travel, then that wormhole can be converted into a time machine with which causality might be violatable. Whether wormholes can be created and maintained entails deep, ill-understood issues about cosmic censorship, quantum gravity, and quantum field theory, including the question of whether field theory enforces an averaged version of the weak energy condition.

Make 2 dots on a plane A4 paper with a wet ink, but across each half. Then fold the paper, can the dots stain the other part of the paper? In short, remember De-JaVu Movie, that movie is one of my best Time-Travel fictional film, it exploited the theory and concept of Wormholing; where the govt. developed a technology that allowed Denzel to journey through space, not only that, he also interacted with the past. Denzel didn't have to travel at or faster than the speed of light, the machine simply delivered enough acceleration/velocity to journey through this so called Wormhole.

Wormholes connect two points in spacetime, which means that they would in principle allow travel in time, as well as in space. In a 1988 paper, Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever worked out explicitly how to convert a wormhole traversing space into one traversing time. However, it has been said a time traversing wormhole cannot take you back to before it was made but this is disputed.

Who knows in another 500years, this might not be too far from possibility. Never say never, ai?

apologies for posts duplicates, check original post below:

apologies for posts duplicates, check original post below:

Image123:
Hi, it has been a good day. Thanks for the new wine confirmation. I for buy you mama put but nairaland no gree pass 200kb attachment.
Now John2v10 says 'when men have well drunk'. My english teacher tell me that is different from 'when men are drunk'. Drunk in that sentence is not the adjective, well is. Drunk is a past participle verb meaning satisfied. Check it up. Goodnight

hahahahahaha  I'm speechless, you make me feel like one English Student and you the English Teacher.

Check out other Bible versions:

NASV "when the people have drunk freely"
NIV "after the guests have had too much to drink"
NLT "when everyone is full and doesn't care"

I will go into the English analysis tomorrow. I just came back from Church now, so I better hit the bed before my eyes pop out.

Gudnight Bro!

Deep Sight:
This is extremely interesting. I would like us to discuss, on a thread i will create for that purpose, the nature of TIME.

But as a teaser - Do you believe it is possible to go back in time.

If you run from point-A to point-B and it takes you 1 minute. . . You double your speed and it takes you 30 seconds. . . you double your speed again and it takes you fifteen seconds, we carry on increasing speed up till the point where it takes you no measurable time to arrive at point B. On, and on we increase the speed untill we arrive at a point whereby you arrive at point B at the exact moment that you left point A. Then we increase the speed even more, and then we arrive at a point that you arrive at Point B 1 second before you left Point A. You have crossed the Time Barrier through speed, and you have traveled to the past.

Guys. . . what do you think. . . but dont really want to derail this thread, so i'll open one on this ASAP

Please provide a link to the thread that you wanna open on the concept of TIME, this is getting interesting. Ciao!

fayahsoul:
In a society under divine law, the likes of abacha would have had his wealth stripped to the last dime and he, and his family, either bannished for life or annihilated of the face of the earth for commiting abormination(nso ani). Nigeria is an abormination unto itself and the wrath of the most high is upon it.

Now having said that, i want to let those of u who worship western models and standards to  know that they are the pioneers of most vile activities we have today in nigeria and afuraka. U really think their leaders come from noble homes? buhahaha i laugh in punjabi

Schwarzenegger's(governor of cali) father was a nazi. The nazi's founded the CIA and nasa. George bush's grand dad funded the nazi. privates cheney comes from a long line of fraudulent monopolists. the clintons are involved in the drug trade with the chinese triad. Most of the presidents(past and present) of the US are linked by blood and we know the history of america stinks to high heavens.  

The world is in the hands of the wicked!

If Muhammad contest for Kano Governorship and wins, it wouldn't remove or add anything to me and my family. Actually, I can see it happening, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Having said that, for him to run for Nigerian President in the future is a different ball game entirely for me. I would like to know the source of his primary business where he got all those $Bleep millions from. He's always refused to itemised the source of those millions of dollars, but for you to be my president, someone the world identify me with, I would expect to at least know your source of primary income. For OBJ, we knew he was into farming, even if there are shaddy deals behind the scene. I don't trust any Politician in Naija jare, but I expect a standard at least.

BTW: If he didn't release the last $400m, he would still be in jail today anyways.

Sorry guys, but I have one small question: For those who believed in the theory of evolution, what will evolve out of men? This is an honest question please, I've just been thinking, if man evolve from something, what will evolve from homo sapiens? Are we the end of the evolution chain? is the chain linear or a cycle?

Seriously, do you still find virgins getting married these days? Maybe those under-25 sha

Image123:
Allta, you don't need to think to far. The fresh grape juice was the new or good wine, while the fermented one was as the name suggests,the old wine or worse wine. You can do your 'jewish' research sha

I'm itching and inclined to comment, should I? hmmm, hmmm, Image123, you go buy me TFC o!

ok, let's go to Matt9:17 where Christ mentioned new wine and old wine ,

ASV
"Neither do [men] put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved."

Amplified
"Neither is new wine put in old wineskins; for if it is, the skins burst and are torn in pieces, and the wine is spilled and the skins are ruined. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

NCV
"Also, people never pour new wine into old leather bags. Otherwise, the bags will break, the wine will spill, and the wine bags will be ruined. But people always pour new wine into new wine bags. Then both will continue to be good."

NLT
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. The old skins would burst from the pressure, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine must be stored in new wineskins. That way both the wine and the wineskins are preserved."

So, we can see that "new wine" here can actually add so much pressure to the leather skin wine bag to burst or spoil it, abi?

Check out what Adam's Clarke Commentary says:

Verse 17. New wine into old bottles
It is still the custom, in the eastern countries, to make their bottles of goat skins: if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them; and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation.

From here, I can see that you're right, ie. fresh grape juice/sugar has to go through fermentation to become alcohol. But really, Fermentation is not the pivot point as there wasn't a mention of "new" wine in John 2:10; rather it's saying good/best/choice, and what Christ turned water into is definitely intoxicating. I would say, it's within or past the stage of fermentation.

But sha, I'm inclined to accept that the wine Christ turned water into (John 2:10) was enough to get people drunk/intoxicated. Having said that, I believe Christians should be encouraged to abstain from Alcohol (which isn't sin) because too much of it can cause wahala, but what about in moderation? well, certainly not a sin. Eg. I can't call someone a sinner for drinking red wine on their flight in moderation, or someone drinking Gulder at a party in moderation, or even Star at home for dinner in moderation etc.

Image123:
Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

Thanks image123, but let me say how I understand that bit of John 2.

Jesus turned water into wine and asked the servants to take it to the master. At this point, the Bible didn't mention whether the wine was "new" or "old".
The servants knew where the wine came from but the master of ceremony didn't. So, he thought the bridegroom kept it for the latter as in until now.
The master tasted the wine, obviously loved it and believed it's much better than some other wine that has been served. Then he said, this "new" wine has been kept until now, but should have been served first.

This got me curious, what differentiates the "new" wine from the "old" wine, is it the degree of fermentation or how long it's fermented for? Actually, I wasn't so sure. I would think it's more in the quality which translates to cost. Generally, the better the quality of a thing, the more expensive it is. I can see you giving me that face, so let me show some other bible translation for verse 10.

John 2:10
NKJV
"And he said to him, "Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!"

ASV
"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."

NASV
"and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; 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!"

NIV
"and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

As for me, my best translation for this verse is in NLT
NLT
"Usually a host serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone is full and doesn't care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!"

The word of particular interest to me in this verse is inferior/worse/poorer/cheaper/less expensive; From the KJV Strongs, the original greek word is "Elasson" a verb - action word which means less in age, rank, excellence. Strongs also compares this word with "Elachistos" meaning smallest in size, amount, importance.

So to me, the "new" wine is more expensive and of better quality than the "old" wine. And people will always prefer to drink and expect to drink the "new" wine first. Like the master of the ceremony said: Everyone serves the best/new/good/more expensive wine first and then when people get too drunk and don't care anymore, you then serve the inferior/cheaper/poorer wine.

Trust me, I've been trying to connect FERMENTATION with how expensive or better a wine can be maybe the more Fermented it is, the more expensive or better it is, or could this be the other way round? Maybe the less Fermented it is the better the quality? And I personally wouldn't have expected Christ to turn water into inferior/worse/poorer/ wine. So, just to reiterate, what makes the wine in John 2 better is in it's quality, and people don't get drunk with fruit wine! The MC clearly states that the type of wine he tasted (which Christ turned water into) was of the type that gets people drunk. isn't it?

When the MC used the word drunk, the greek word he used is Methuo(meaning to be drunken), a verb which is coined from Methe - a noun which means intoxication/drunkeness. Tell me, can fruit wine intoxicate people at a party? So if Christ turned water into a wine that can intoxicate, I really don't know why the degree of fermentation is much of an issue here. Except ofcourse, if the wine fermented at the speed of light while the servants were taking in to the MC.

Image123:
@kunleOshob and Allta
   Good to see that we're moving together. But you need to do your beer and wine researches well again o. Nobody can put 90% alcohol in any drink. Then beer is usually of higher alcoholic content than wine.
Also, please note that what is generally known as wine today is FERMENTED, not naturally but induced. It quite different from fresh palmwine which over time will ferment. It's different from grape juice which over time will ferment. Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

You're right image123, I wasn't sure about beer, that's why I used the word maybe

Allta:
So now we're saying alcohol get category, it's ok to drink wine (a type of alcoholic drink with 14% alcohol) in moderation but not beer (another type of alcohol maybe 90% alcohol) in moderation.

But I can confirm beer usually contains between 4 to 8% ethyl alcohol by volume. For reference, see http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php Kunle mentioned something close as well. One thing for sure, beer is usually less as strong as wine in alcohol percentage terms.

So, I will edit/change that part of my post now. Thanks

If he's got something to hide at home for OP, then why doesn't he want to go to OP's house?

Seriously, if the guy is not pursuing something, something is surely pursuing him. Like someone mentioned sha, force him to come visit your place. If he resists, you might have to just let go, he's not worth it my darling sista.

Na wa for all these Money Launderers self, why not bury the money for your farm yard? Nonsense!!
UK can tear the aides apart for all I care. Rubbish!!
And even Ibori himself nko, Barawo!!

KunleOshob:
In th elight of the above it is better it is preached that christians are encouraged to abstain from the consumption, it should not be presented as a biblical sin as those doing so are twisting the word of God to butress their point and commiting an even greater sin. In our mis-placed zealousness we should not be guilty of adding to or subtracting from the word of God.

Sometimes, the way you think and comment makes me wanna take a deep breathe.

This is the way it should be taught jare, encourage abstinence from consumption and don't "demonise" wine/alcohol; many of us have seen what excess of it does, and indeed, it's nothing good to write home about; most times anyways.

naijanow:
By the way, this prophecy was said live on Emmanuel TV before the match
Had it been that the NFF, Shaibu and d rest had acknowledged tbj as a man of God and had been noticing how God shows him what is yet to come, they could have even called him and asked for advice - "pastor, so you see that the result would be this way - is there anything we can do?" or they could have cotnacted him before the match for any insight - tbj could have then given them advice on how to play to avoid that happening.

the problem is, the government, the nff and nigeria as a whole has not recognized or appreciated tbj for what he is - a prophet sent from God - they jkust continue ti hurl insults and slander as his ministry continues to grow. a prophet is not without honour except in his own country
anyone doubting the prophecies should check out the website and see how he has consistently prophesied events which come to pass - fine - you can doubt 1 or 2 or 3 but can you doubt 40? apart from dat, the prophecies he gives to individuals that attend his church every sunday is astonishing - he tells them things which they have not told anyone before

abeg, nigeria, wake up and recognize this prophet sent from God

Well maybe Yes, maybe Amodu could have taken more precaution. But God would not let the unseriousness of some overshadow the hardwork of others! We can't dispute the fact that some other African countries took qualification more seriously than we did. Even if TBJ predicts, oh! sorry prophesy that Naija will win, we still have to do the business on the day. Faith without Work is Death! and Faith with Unseriousness is a Calamity!!

Image123:
The premise that God created alcohol therefore it is good for consumption is flawed. The same excuse can be used for sand, stones and fellow humans.
  The issue is that many who canvass for alcohol consumption do not bear in mind that there are different types of alcohol. Infact, alcohol itself cannot be taken in ordinarily, that's suicide. So let's make a difference between. Wine itself is different from beer, and wine get classes and types. It'll be wrong to put all(e.g lager, ale, stout, juice, paraga etc) together and say 'they drank wine in the bible- alcohol is good. It pays to look WELL before you leap.

So now we're saying alcohol get category, it's ok to drink wine (a type of alcoholic drink with 14% alcohol) in moderation but not beer (another type of alcohol usually 90% less than 8% alcohol) in moderation. Christ turned water into Yayin - a carbonated and fermented liquid - wine but not alcohol? He was called a drunkard for drinking wine in moderation and not alcohol. I wonder how they were able to differentiate between wine and alcohol those days self. But one thing is certain, whatever Christ was drinking is enough to make someone to be called a drunkard! and there were so many places in the bible where they called someone a drunkard/winebibber!

Let's go back to the basics, what's the difference between wine and alcohol self?
From Dictionary:
ALCOHOL: "a colorless, limpid, volatile, flammable, water-miscible liquid, C2H5OH, having an etherlike odor and pungent, burning taste, the intoxicating principle of fermented liquors, produced by yeast fermentation of certain carbohydrates, as grains, molasses, starch, or sugar, or obtained synthetically by hydration of ethylene or as a by-product of certain hydrocarbon syntheses: used chiefly as a solvent in the extraction of specific substances, in beverages, medicines, organic synthesis, lotions, tonics, colognes, rubbing compounds, as an automobile radiator antifreeze, and as a rocket fuel." eg. "whiskey, gin, vodka, or any other intoxicating liquor containing this liquid."

WINE: "the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less."

Having seen this, I must admit that wine is different from alcohol in the context of your point above, but if wine isn't a sin, then I see no reason why alcohol should be! But too much wine can be sinful, and too much alcohol can too!

Image123:
@Allta
It's good that you hope to be like Jesus in the future, not like someone you barely know.
I posted something on Luke 7v33,34. Hope you read it? The passage says John came neither eating bread. Does He literally mean that John lived without food? What sort of wine was Jesus drinking i.e what was the alcoholic content, any idea? Was Jesus a winebiber and gluttonous as a matter of 'biblical fact'? These are questions we should consider well in our working, so as not to arrive in what is called WURUWURU to the answer

Hahahah! You remind me of my Secondary school days! WURUWURU to the answer! lol!

First my statement about wanting to be like Kunle is personal and why not? The fact that I want to be like Peter or Paul or Timothy in NT doesn't mean I can't be like Christ! Yah dig?
Ok, let's assume the saying that John came "neither eating bread" is metaphorical as in form of parables, I agree with you that, that doesn't nullify the fact that John consumed bread! Have a look at New Living Translation of verse 33 and 34:-

NLT Translation for Luke 7:33 and 34
"For John the Baptist didn't drink wine and he often fasted, and you say, 'He's demon possessed.' "

"And I, the Son of Man, feast and drink, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners!"

So when Christ was saying John neither eat bread nor drank, he was actually referring to FASTING dude. not that John never consumed bread!

Please IMO, Christ produced wine(Yayin) at that marriage ceremony, are you saying he didn't drink of it? Are you saying he never drank wine(Yayin) and people were calling him winebibber? Why did Paul ask Timothy to mix some wine(Oinos) with water to drink in 1 Tim 5:23 ,  my brother biko, wine and alcohol is good, too much of it is bad!

Jesus eats well and drink moderately, he also dine with the non-traditional religious peeps, that's why they call him gluttony, drunkard and friends of the sinners. What he did, clearly, didn't make him anything of those, just like we can't say John was demon possessed for fasting and not drinking! Yah dig?

Wait o ,  Coca-Cola dey relocate to Ghana, will dey give employees option to relocate too?

Also, can share holders relocate some NBC shares from NSE to Ghana Stock Market too?

I pity my fellow country men o! Chei!!

tpia.:
besides, the title is misleading.

Coca cola has been the only concentrate factory in Nigeria for quite sometime. Not the last, since there were no competitors.

That fact in itself is quite strange.

However, how is pepsi coping in Nigeria with no factory yet its still sold in most places.

Oga tpia, be careful unless moderator will delete your post!

AjaraEwuro:
[size=14pt]NairaLand is so fake - some stupid moderator deleted my post because I said something contrary to the views of others here - that post was what bawomolo quoted in his first comment - moda foking moderators - [/size]

Na today!!!

@drnonye

"Ko easy man" means "It's not Easy Man"
"Ako nfa gburu ni JD yi ni man" means "We just dey struggle for this JD Man"

It might only work for Yoruba dudes though, not sure what Igbo and Hausa peeps say to their peeps when things aren't easy in JD.

Ha! I almost forget,
@ Chris_j, safe journey, hope say those bad kidnapper boys no dey NL sha, I beg o, carry two eyes for front like crab for Naija o! Watch you back Bro

I used to have this believe that Naija will not break into 3 abi 6 deni in my lifetime. So, my allegiance to Naija and not my Ethnicity. I can die for being a Nigerian, make that death go really hammer before him go take me go on Ethnic grounds.

drnonye:
Gamine ,
tell me, what would u have said 2 her?

Men, no long thing abegi, I would have simply used the popular Yoruba phrase: "Ko easy man"! "Ako nfa gburu ni JD yi ni man"!! , trust me, it works all the time for friends o!

ndu_chucks:
^^^ Na wa for wayas;  Case Closed. !!      

Case Closed ke, Ya never heard of VideoShop and MATLAB? Yep, that's right!

drnonye:
Gamine ,

so u telling me is reasonable 2 ask a friend just 3 months 2 his studies in UK 2 send u a laptop?

haba, b honest .

i think its not only unreasonable but irresponsible and wicked.

so so so so so so funny, I love NL

We're not here to count bridges.
You know that's a fact

Here comes a fat cat
posing in his Mercedes Benz

I'll lock and load my gat
And we'll see where this all ends

Pull over my friend, or woe betide
'Cause I'm in no mood for joking

You sit there in your cool ride
While I stand in the sun smoking

Is that cash in your trunk ?
Well you know what that means, don't you

I'm taking a fat cut, and don't give me no bunk
The last guy who said no, dropped dead with a thunk

To the winner go the spoils
And your money is mine with no toils

Play it smart and cool, and you just might get home
Play it dumb and hard, and they'll never find your bones

Sgt. Dongoyaro Abubakar Mumuuuni

Men, I laugh so te, my eyes dey cry red self. Time to go join the most prestigious force in West Africa. Police Academy, here I come!! rotflmao

beefblaze:
For your info, the prediction took place way earlier that day, during the morning service.
And mind you he doesn't only prophesy failure, but good news as well,
To you all:
Be cautious of words that come out of mouth, they can instigate things u wouldn't like to experience any time,
God Bless us all,
Am out!

Can someone please highlight some of the good news he's prophesied about Stars, Nigerian Super Eagles or even Nigeria at large?
So there is no freedom of speech in the Church now? A pastor steals money, we can't talk; A pastor sleep with girls in the congregation, we can't talk; A pastor gives false("cosmeticised" prophecies; we can't talk. Na wa o!