₦airaland Forum

There's these animation, a village setting where a young girl tries to live right.

In one episode there's one big stomach,fat lips man that wanted to rape her...

There's also a monkey (as cast) and another guy.

I think the girl's name is Sara.

Can't remember the name of the cartoon and not even sure if it was televised on NTA. Nice cartoon anyways.

Does anyone know the title?

cryptic21: They are nt mouse they are dogs

no mind me,na old age. I barely remember it. What's the name of the cartoon?

Felix the cat,Magic school bus, bright sparks, jumbo...

These two mouse, one black and the other white (watin be the name sef)...usually acted in their house and their backyard. Turning the hands of time with their fingers, watching TV, pranking one another from the backyard. Anyone remember that one?

dekung: I wish every Nigerian can read this

Even if, it will make no difference to the investors.
Small money,big interest rate--cheap wealth.
If that's all it takes to be wealthy,they should freely give after they freely receive but...

I wonder if there is any married person who despite having itches with his/her spouse that would say having good in-laws is better option (from experiences).

I wonder what would have made a person hold such view. I was surprised to hear that from a married man. I wonder...

@kirinwa and vivian chinaza
True talk. In reality,we all should want both. However,if this were to be a debate (because it is not anyways) which would you be in support of and why.

Just as nicely as exponential responded (I am sure that his not his wish either)

On my way to work this morning, I got into a light family life discussion with some friends and we were sharing experiences.

One stated an adage to support His view that it is better to have good in-laws and a bad wife (if either is inevitable) while the third party said otherwise.

It was a brief discussion as I was close to my office and had to drop off.

NLders,what's your view on this subject matter?

IF EITHER IS INEVITABLE

Married and Singles, your opinions are welcome

Raymondenyi: And she being without a man, u think is a short coming? Dis is d black brain mentality, she will definitely hv suitors, she is more concerned wt wat she is fixing,bro! Husband is not her problem, she will hv if she chooses to! She doesn't just want to. Many men re limiting factors rather dan propellants

What is she fixing sir? Ask her (or ask successful 35 years olds around you) if the joy of "fixing something" can take the place of a man in her life.
You obviously are single and male and yet to understand that part of humanity. It's not just a black man thing.

@ "Husband is not her problem, she will hv if she chooses to"

I bet she won't have one at the snap of her fingers. Ask level headed single ladies around you. Husband Maybe a boyfriend.

@ "Many men re limiting factors rather dan propellants"

You're so on point in error. Thank God you're a male.

As far as I am concerned (though I am not talking about this trouser issue) if NYSC won't respect people's religious belief,they should scrap all religious activities. These beliefs existed before NYSC.

If the camp adds pork as meat to the food served to corp members, would our muslim brethren eat it? Does that mean they are forming "holier than thou"
If 50% of the corp members are pork eating members,would the 50% muslims go to hell if they eat the pork?

Let's be objective and respect individual beliefs.

Even in the armed forces and the civil police,there are women who still wear skirt(for whatever reason,I don't know) so...

stint: .a whole new definition to the word 'polygamy'.or is it just the 21st century definition .

It's called polyandry. If this kin story happen for 9ja,I go sing femi kuti "I sorry sorry o..."

Logicboy03: Frosbel is part of the false church that he rails against. I will open a thread challenging forsbel soon.

Logicboy03: Frosbel is part of the false church that he rails against. I will open a thread challenging forsbel soon.

Interesting thread. I dey side dey watch;na lines man I be for this thread o.

Goshen360: That's not moredendisc's modification o. Read other bible translations - that's where he got it from.

E be like say old age don come o. How come I no see am for my bible until I check am this time after asking you.

Goshen360: That's not moredendisc's modification o. Read other bible translations - that's where he got it from.

E be like say old age don come o. How come I no see am for my bible until I check am this time after asking you.

moredendisc: "It is impossible for you to sin" is an error and has 1 John 3:9 KJV to blame for that, it should had being translated correctly as:

"Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God."

@GOSHEN
Do you agree with moredendisc's view/modification of 1 John 3:9?

It sure makes sense to me but are we allowed to do such personally especially as it is not from any known and generally acceptable bible translation?

Goshen360: ^
I have always told those who say they "fall under the anointing or slain in the spirit" that they should take away the "catchers" at the back and let's see if they will still keep falling under same anointing. The ONLY people that falls in the scriptures are those possessed of DEMONS.

They can't show us where BELIEVERS OR CHRISTIANS in the early church were falling under the anointing or catchers were to catch people if they are to fall - A pure imitation and counterfeit of Spritual gifts. Besides, one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is self-CONTROL. Any spirit that knocks a Christian down (I'm not talking of demon possessed person o) is NOT the Spirit of God!

Goshen360: ^
I have always told those who say they "fall under the anointing or slain in the spirit" that they should take away the "catchers" at the back and let's see if they will still keep falling under same anointing. The ONLY people that falls in the scriptures are those possessed of DEMONS.

They can't show us where BELIEVERS OR CHRISTIANS in the early church were falling under the anointing or catchers were to catch people if they are to fall - A pure imitation and counterfeit of Spritual gifts. Besides, one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is self-CONTROL. Any spirit that knocks a Christian down (I'm not talking of demon possessed person o) is NOT the Spirit of God!

I can tell that you have been listening to Tunde Bakare lately with this your post.

Anyways,na true you talk sha.

Goshen360: Which verse 15 am I interpreting in isolation? Did Paul ever mentioned anything like scarf/hat/veil/mantle as covering FOR "HEAD" or "HAIR". Didn't Paul say if a woman shave is the SAME AS THOUGH SHE'S NOT COVERED? The same Paul now said the HAIR is give her as covering FOR THE HEAD.

I know it takes God and humility to accept you guys were wrong for years. What you teaching is HAIR covering NOT HEAD covering.t

No,Paul did not mention scarf nor hat and that is exactly why I said we should use another approach instead of the same old Debate about LOGOS. If differentiation won't work,let's intergrate; let's work from what we do to get what we believe.

This is the major theme of this thread and you have refused to answer it personally nor on behalf of your congragation.

Here it goes again:

iF IT IS NOT ABOUT SCARF/HAT, why then do the men (in the churches where your view is being held) not put on hat/cap at random as the women in such congregation do?

If you can't answer these question, then you don't believe what you preach.

Studying the root greek/hebrew words has never solved the doctrinal differences in christiandom and I see this is where you've committed your strength into.

Greek/hebrew word study is just a LOGOS exercise that is why this thread is a questions about how YOU (GOSHEN) and others that I invited practice what you translate the scripture to mean.

Goshen360: In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

Ok teacher GOSHEN,from your statement was the above extracted. The study aids YOU (GOSHEN) used, covering as it appears in verse 15 is translated
" 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil. "

So,tell us sir,what is the implication of this when substituted into the verse?


You have also be dodging the question asked.

Tell us, did you verify the sources (bible dictionaries) I provided --smith’s handi reference bible dictionary and Holman illustrated bible dictionary which I said refers to covering as with veil.

At least,I am not Holman nor Smith.

@GOSHEN
While we have to reason the "reasonable" parts,let us not forget that God is not an idea/body of theories that is subject to review by us.

There are the parts of our faith that must be accepted and swallowed hook,line and sinker otherwise,we are not a part of the faith in the first place.

Nice challenge you have posted to the church anyways.

Cheers!

P.S.
Watin happen now? We no come here from you again for that side. Abeg,if you no go come futher your doctrinal position again,just come give your honourable "sign-off" post.

Even you FROSBEL. You no gree come back.

...Because a lot of them are of reasonable storylines than most NOLLYWOOD movies

Many truth to consider.

@GOSHEN,we are still waiting on you.

@Frosbel,You said you'll be back. I hope you're not stuck in traffic.

Goshen,what is the implication of this excerpt from your post as quoted below?

Goshen360: In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

I also want to ask if you verified the sources (bible dictionaries) I used--smith’s handi
reference bible dictionary and Holman
illustrated bible dictionary which I said refers to covering as with veil.
verify and tell us "so that everybody can read and learn. Take your time please...and we continue.

Thanks. I hope I'm not asking too
much?
We are all learning you know.
Please,let me know. So that we can all learn"

Sorry for borrowing your words.

MostHigh: Anikulapo

Thank you for your commentry very on point

remain blessed


Peace love and joy!!!

Thanks for the compliment. Just laboring for the truth and the true doctrine like many other NLders.

More to come by God's grace.

By the way,it's Anukulapo not Anikulapo.

Thanks.

Image123: woah, just went through anukulapo's last post and they are indeed, words on marble.
katakatalupopo, i feel like speaking in tongues mehn. no wonder those guys from J's church almost lose control when their Pastor starts greeking them(if u know what i mean). lol.

LWKMD @ katakatalupopo. Na so u dey kabash? LOL

Oh,it's tag team time. Oga frosbel is warming up.


@GOSHEN,I have a question. Can I ask?

Like Jo said (https://www.nairaland.com/1171845/carnality-corinthians-churches-abuse-speaking) "You need to understand the code of a writing. Just as paul gave the code about covering of hair. Head of woman is. . . Head of man is. . .anybody who miss that part will lose the truth about that passage."

You must first understand that 1 cor 11:2-16 is about "headship and glory" (verse 3). The introduction gave such indication -- I'll have you know that...

From verse 4, he started the analogy of headship pointing the order even existing between God and Christ. In order words, having a head and being subject to some else’s authority is part of the nature within God Himself, and – consequently – is reflected in creation.

He then goes to an application while praying and prophesying – or more general: He speaks about the assembly (which becomes clear from verse 17 that confirms verses 2-16 as a command ["in commanding this I do not praise you"] and connects it to the second tradition he handed down to the church [the Lord's Supper] – note the plural of tradition in verse 2, which gives in fact equal weight to both!).

The order between God-Christ-Man and Woman shall be shown in a symbol that involves our physical heads. How they are covered or uncovered is a statement on headship: The Man’s uncovered head represents the “uncovered authority” of Christ. A woman covering her head, covers the man and is at the same time a confession that – yes – leadership is male. But that the man is symbolically covered in prayer and prophecy is significant, because it stresses, that human authority must be silent in the presence of Christ.

The second argument deals with golry, and it follows the same direction: Man, as the image and glory of God must be uncovered, woman as the glory of man (and human) must be covered. And in doing this, she also covers her own glory, which is her long hair. The point that is made is obvious: All human glory must be veiled in the assembly, only God’s glory may remain uncovered.

Though, in the eyes of God,both are the same but for (divine) order sake, man is the head of the woman and the man (as the head amongst humans) represents the head (head--in absolutism is the headship of God whom i pointed out sometime earlier in my posts is under no one's authority)

It is all about the glory of God and the authority of Christ and to underline that, it has nothing to do with culture whatsoever. Paul adds, that this symbol is important for the angels. He does not explain how or why, he just hints to this unseen reality. This reminds us we should not only ponder what seems important and relevat to us only, but get a feel for heavenly realities.

Now, in equating the “peribolaion” with which nature “naturally” provides women with the kaluma, the words katakalupto and akatakalupto speak of, Woman’s glory may be covered, thus man’s glory remains covered – both human glories are equally “present” in the presence of God’s Glory: This is putting man on the same level as God amongst humans and the woman in the place of humans! Do you get the point?

The reason Paul uses nature as an analogy is that Greeks were used to pray uncovered (or better: they were pretty much indifferent)! They somehow needed to be convinced that a veil is not something strange at all!

So Paul is kind of saying "Nature does the same: It makes a clear and visible distinction between the physical look of the head of a woman and that of a man. And we view this as glorious, when a woman has long hair and appears truly female; and vice versa we reagrd as shameful when a man looks like a woman. The long hair veils her like a “peribolaion”-veil. But – mark this – this her glory must be covered with a “kaluma”- covering tin in the assembly Because this is not the time to “show off” men’s or women’s (humans') glories but to focus on God’s glory alone. This reminds us also that both Paul and Peter fordbid women to draw unnecessary attention to themselves through elaborate hairstyles, which somehow most women do up to this day. If we allow women to be uncovered, we also have these more or less “swaggar/pimped/braggy” hairstyles in front of our eyes, don’t we?

https://www.nairaland.com/808947/there-female-angels/1

Ok. Just to acknowledge reading your reply. I'll do more explanations tomorrow as I cannot type so lengthy text with my phone.

In the mean time,verify the dictionary meanings I provided from those sources and tell us if they really say so.

I have hard copies of both too but didn't bother to find others on the internet.

We may continue the scholastic/theological debate but if you'll want me to,I'll explain the text (1 cor 11:2-16) in summary and you can tell us if the explanation I'll give is true otherwise,I'll ask some other questions which if you provide answers to them,will help a great deal.

Stay blessed.

Goshen360: Okay! Very good. Now, can you help all of us to check the mean of "covering" in this verse please.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. - 1 Cor. 11:15.

If you have a concordance/dictionary, kindly help us check the meaning of the word highlighted in RED, "covering" so that everybody can read and learn. Take your time please. When you get the meaning, kindly post it here (maybe with your source) and we continue. Thanks. I hope I'm not asking too much? We are all learning you know.

Note that this study is not an isolation of verse 15 because the word “cover” (and other related forms) appears in other verses too. Except you want to say that cover and covering have different meanings and not state (as in verb/noun)

AND

The two dictionaries I have (smith’s handi reference bible dictionary and Holman illustrated bible dictionary) refers to covering as with veil. I don’t have more than two. If you have another that says otherwise, let me know. I go find person wey get am even if I no fit buy am.

By the way, did you read Weymouth New Testament translation when you were studying?
11:14 Does not Nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him,
11:15 but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given her for a covering?

Did you notice that Weymouth ended verse 14 with a comma sign while verse 15 ended with a question mark? while others did not--that is because the epistle(letter) written by Paul’s hand was not written in verses and chapter but as a single letter (just like every other books of the bible except proverbs that some verses are actually a single sentence on their own)

Anyways

The points from verse 14 and 15 are Paul's last argument in his series of arguments, now appealing to common sense and observation: He uses nature as an illustration for the covering issue. Saying, even nature provided women with a natural covering (which adds glory to them) which is the counterpart to the covering (the natural equivalent to the veil women shall wear during prayer and while prophesying).

That by nature we should observe that the hair given to women is an indication/example of the expectation to have a covering (veil).
Also, He spoke concerning two specific actions "praying and prophesying".

Is it that a woman can have short hair when they are not engaged in these actions but must have long hair when doing these?

E no make sense!

Also, how can hair be cut off if it is already short? Or can men have long hair any other time except when they pray and prophesy?




Here’s a little background on Weymouth's translation.

Richard Francis Weymouth's popular translation of the New Testament into English was first published in 1903 and has been in print through numerous editions ever since with millions of copies sold. Weymouth's aim has been to discover how the inspired writers themselves would have expressed and described the events of the New Testament and Gospels, had they been actually writing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In doing so, he has succeeded in rendering it into a dignified modern English edition without ecclesiastical nor doctrinal bias making it desirable to Christian readers of all denominations. The Resultant Greek Testament was prepared for final publication by Reverend Ernest Hampden-Cook (Weymouth's assistant associate) in 1903. The Resultant Greek Testament, by Richard Francis Weymouth, exhibited the text in which the majority of modern editors agreed, and contained readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, The Bâle Edition (1880), Westcott and Hort, and the Revision Committee of London.

Goshen360: @ anukulapo,

Okay. I get your teachings. Still from the translations you quoted, let's agree it says 'having something on his head' it still doesn't mention specifically what that 'something' is or should be. You're the one reading that something to be cap/hat. The only thing Paul talked about IN THIS CONTEXT as related to HEAD covering is HAIR. Okay, if you're saying otherwise, kindly confirm if what I extracted from your teachings as below is true:

1. To 'Cover' and 'covering' IS NOT with hair right?
2. Cover = veil
3. If your answer to (2) above is that cover = veil; Cover(ing) for a woman, IS IT TO WEAR or USE A VEIL also?

Is this what you're saying? If not, kindly explain to the above questions then we can continue. Thank you!

You got me right.

Enoquin: I learnt nothing on this thread but a personal attack on Bro. Goshen

Saddening

@Goshen360...I like how you handle issues and even though no human is 100 percent right on the matter of the gospel (I am not in anyway referring to this thread), you have shown yourself diligent...It's a shame I no longer enjoy this section because almost everyone is puffed up with vain pride forgetting the babies that are still on milk!

@OP: I doubt these little things will hinder anyone from rapture and if it wouldn't...what joy is there in making a mockery of the gospel. To each his own but let us all be aware that the goal is heaven and arguments will not take us there...
I am everly fond of II Peter 1:5-9...special emphasis on 9...
No castigate me oh OP...we are still paddies oh but still...you know how I am on anything that isn't edifying and this isn't....in my humble opinion...

Shalom!

The thread was not opened with the intention of bible teaching nor personal attack on Bro. Goshen. With due respect,I learn a lot from him too (and other knowledgeable NLders).
If you read my opening post,I simply questioned a position of doctrine and our dear brother Goshen was not the only person I requested to honour my questions. As a matter of fact,I called them because I know they are knowledgeable and I wanted them to separate "what we say the bible says" from "what we do".

"I learnt nothing on this thread but a personal attack on Bro. Goshen"

To say that you learnt nothing may be true (your opinion) and therefore acceptable but the "attack" part is a bias (in my opinion) based on the respect of Goshen's popularity (again,my opinion). I choose not to quote all his "ridiculous" choice of words in response to other posts on this thread (because this is not my purpose for responding to you).

*****I doubt these little things will hinder anyone from rapture and if it wouldn't...what joy is there in making a mockery of the gospel. To each his own but let us all be aware that the goal is heaven and arguments will not take us there...*****

Since the above comment is directed to me and not to all on the thread with different views (as well as other believers who have conflicting views on various christian doctrines), from my understanding, it is as if you are saying that by my asking for clarifications about the difference of our doctrinal view,I am mocking the gospel--joyfully (I stand to be corrected but that's how I understand your post).

It is well,I understand that you are trying to say "for meat destroy not the work of God...". However,the scripture was written to both them that eat and them that eat not meat and not one sided.

Like I said earlier,anybody can "google" "copy and paste" anything--it's a free resource to every internet user. However,I encourage you to read this before commenting.


First, in verse 4, the expression translated
"having his head covered" in the King James
Version is literally "having down on a head." The
New American Standard Version translates it
"who has something on his head." This expression would hardly refer to a man wearing long hair. Infact, Plutarch uses a very similar expression ("having the cloak down on the head" to refer to a man pulling his cloak up over his head. And in Esther 6:12 most manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament read that Haman went to his house "mourning down on a head"—a way of saying he put something over his head to show his mourning.
Second, the word group which includes the
words translated "cover" and "uncover" in verses 5, 6, 7, and 13 is not used elsewhere to refer to the hair, but is used to refer to some other type of covering. "Cover" ("veil"—ASV, RSV of verse 6) in verses 6 and 7 translates katakalupto which means "cover, veil" and in the middle voice "cover oneself."25 The word occurs only here in the New Testament, but it is found several times in the Greek Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 38:15 of Tamar where it is said that she had "covered" her face. It can easily be seen from the preceding verse that she did not cover her face with her hair but with a veil.

Similarly the word is used in three manuscripts in Esther 6:12 where it says that Haman hurried to his house in mourning with his head "covered." Here again it is obvious that Haman had not grown his hair long to show his shame, but had thrown something over his head.
"Uncovered" ("unveiled"—ASV, RSV of verse 5) in
verses 5 and 13 translates akatakaluptos which
simply means "uncovered."

This word also is found nowhere else in the New Testament and only once in the Greek Old Testament. One manuscript contains the word in Leviticus 13:45 where it is said that one with a leperous baldness should "uncover" his head. (For this see the King James Version; the Hebrew literally says, "let the hair of his head hang loose." Here again it can be seen that "uncover" is not cutting off the hair. The noun forms of this word group (katakalupsis and katakalumma, both meaning "covering" are not found in the New Testament. Katakalupsis does occur in the second century Christian writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 4, 2, 1: ". . . a virgin arrayed as if she were going forth from a bride- chamber, all in white and with white sandals, veiled up to her forehead, and her head-covering [katakalupsis] consisted of a turban, and her hair was white."

Here once again it is obvious that the covering is not hair, but a turban. Of the seventeen times that katakalumma occurs in the Greek Old Testament, only once does it refer to a head covering. See Isaiah 47:2. (The King James
Version and the New English Bible take the
Hebrew word behind katakalumma to mean
"locks" or "tresses," but the other modern
translations and Hebrew lexicons28 define the
word as "veil."

Goshen,too many words,too little influence. I cannot but agree that "knowledge puffs up".
I was not interested in a theory based truth revealing style (which you pride yourself in) which in its-self (bible exposition) is not wrong but I just want to justify you,or rather have you justify your position by what you do. Like James demanded that we "show our faith by works".

I also cannot but giggle at your response. I though you'll ask me why I didn't do any exposition (anybody can google and paste supports for the doctrines that believe even if they don't know anything about it). You are too quick to pick ridiculous ways to try to rob off your ego on people(thus I perceive)

I just gave you direct answers to let you come out of the "box". You just want to talk about what you know and not what you do.

Did you even notice that I didn't ask you any question like you said I should?

*****Let's dig it in participatory format, you ask
questions and I ask questions, you teach using
scriptures to explain scriptures. You find
meanings to important words and I do same
etc*****

Please,refer to the thread topic and the OP. In the mean time,educate us and I'll ask you questions.

Goshen360: Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. - 1 Corinthians 11:4

Key words:

1. Every man
2. [his] head......which one since head has two definitions?
3. covered
4. dishonoureth
5. his head........which one since head has two definitions?

What (in your own exposition and teaching) is this verse saying?

1) Every male
2) The physical head
3) Having an object (hat/cap)
4) Showing disregard
5) The divine authority (of christ) which he (the man) is under