₦airaland Forum

@ Seun

As this is a discussion forum, you shouldn't be surprised that I'm discussing your story.

- Why do you think the ghost decided to take JAMB?  
- Why did she touch you intimately?  
- If she wanted to sleep with you, then fail to check you later?
- Why did she drop a correct name with you?  SUrely that defeats her aim right?

If you are a Christian, it may interest you to know that the bible doesn't support your story.

So what are you saying Seun that the story wasn't true, or that the girl wasn't what he thought her to be? If its the latter then you don't have a case. The person has more grounds to think so than you.

For one it waasn't your experience, and secondly, the fact that people could testify to the appearance/matching description of the girl who was once alive speaks in favour of leketoye

In my home country there have been similar experiences. I once heard of a man who met this girl at a party, and asked of her a dance to which she obliged. He said that while dancing with her her body felt unusually cold. He didn't pay it any mind. In short he dropped her home after the party, but had forgotten he had loaned her his jacket.

So one evening he went back to pay her a visit and to collect his jacket. He knocked for awhile until a lady came and answered the door. he asked for the girl and gave a description, and even pointed to a door that she had entered. You know what the lady told him after he enquired about the girl?

The lady said that there was no one living in that section of the house for the past 10 years, and that the same girl had died for the same period, having been a family member. So he insisted that this girl took his jacket, , and the lady carried him to the family plot. Guess what happened? He saw his jacket on her grave.

These are not made up stories. As I have said before Satan is real and he is playing tricks.

@ Leketoye

Sometime in late 2000, i went to Jamb office to collect my sister's result. While I was sitting waiting to be called, a beautiful girl walked towards me. I really didn't see where she came from. She asked to sit with me and I agreed. So we started talking and at a point she was stroking my thigh. There was this funny feeling I had so I just started muttering a prayer ( still don't know why i did that). We talked and talked and talked. We ended up exchanging addresses.

She however insisted on doing the visiting. We later left there together and she paid my transport fare to Obalende from Ikoyi. I returned to school that weekend. As God would have it, my roomate was going to see a friend of his on the same street the girl told me she lived. He promised to check her out.

I was shocked when my roomate came back to tell me that the girl in question had been dead for like 2 - 3 years. Her family still lived on that street. I eventually met 2 other peole who knew her when she was alive.

I was really scared but I prayed about it. I told my sisters but I didn't tell my parents. Sounds like "nollywood stuff" but it happened to me. What do you peple think

I don't doubt your experience at all. Ihave no reason to think you're lying.

However, what you thought was a dead girl, was in fact a demon pretending to be her. The fact that you prayed suggests to me that you believe in God. If that is the case then believe the bible.

The bible teaches that "the dead know not anything" Eccl. 9:5, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7.

The body without the spirit ["breath," see margin] is dead." James 2:26,  "The spirit of God ["the breath which God gave him," see margin] is in my nostrils." Job 27:3.

You see friend there is a notion being taught that the soul of man is eternal. This is a false teaching and isn't biblical. Satan introduced it to Eve in the garden which led to her disobedience. He told her that if she ate the forbidden fruit she wouldn't necessarily die as God had said. Its obvious he Satan had a huge plan, which he has managed to pass on to people who fail to read and understand God's words.

Let me share a true story wit the board. A report came from the army one day that a mother's son was missing in action. He was presumed dead. The love that she had for her son was so great that she felt she couldn't do better but try and commmunicate with her boy through the use of a medium.

After the process commenced she actually saw an apparition at one of the sessions, and literally heard the "thing" related to matters that were only privy to them as mother and son. She was convinced that that was her son. She heard the same voice, and saw the same appearance, at least so she thought.  

This continued for awhile, but one afternoon while she was at home, she heard a rap at the door, and went to enquire. Who do you think she saw at the door? Next time I tell you, Just kidding.  , guess who? She saw her real son. He wasn't dead after all.

My question to the board is; who did she communicate with before her living son appeared?

Ever wondered why the bible refers to them as "familiar spirits" Its because for every person that is born there is an assigned demon to observe everything about them. They study your personality and actions, and although they cannot read your mind, they have a good idea as to your weaknesses. They are familiar with you.

But thank God that for every demon assigned to you by Satan, God has assigned two to you. As long as you do your part Satan cannot touch you unless God permits. As christians we must never create loopholes for demons to molest us. Guard well the avenues to your soul, ie be careful what you see, listen to, eat, drink, feel, and even what you believe.

Satan is real and he is the enemy of souls.

@ Dotmance

Can you believe this? I slept with a ghost!

You might find it difficult to believe but it is true.

I went on holiday to my village with my younger sister seeking for adventure,for i love adventure so much.We actually lodged in our grand dad's house.On this fateful night i slept as usual,but suddenly in the mid-night;i felt like easing myself on discovering that i could not move any part of me on the bed.I tried to move my head but to no avail.I later felt a movement at my back,and i saw something like a spirit coming down from the bed and disappeared.The whole part of me was heavy and for the first time i was afraid.

Could this be my grand-dad and what is the consequence?

I don't doubt your experience at all, but to be truthful it isn't your grand father.

What people refer to as ghosts are fallen angels, or demons. They can molest you while you sleep. In fact the more we open our minds to carnal things the more they approach us, or have access to us.

There are many people who believe that they can communicate with their dead relatives, based on what others have encountered in the past, but whatever experiences people might have had as it relates to such encounters, and no doubt they are real ones, it is a plan of the devel to decieve us into thinking that hen we are dead we aren't really dead.

Thats why certain people in Africa, and the caribbean region still believe in keeping in touch with their ancestors. Its even prevalent among white folks too. Its not just an african thing. Its everywhere.

People who act as mediums, or chanellers, between so-called dead ones and the living, are being used by Satan to perpetuate one of the greatest deceptions ever created.

Just make sure your soul is right with God and these molestors will leave you be.

If I were to tell you some experiences your hair would stand on its end. Satan is real and so is God.

@ Tanicarr

I no people think different things but what do you think about Jesus and the role he played before God sent his spirit into the virgin mary.I notice most people don't think about Jesus's role in heaven before he came in the form of man.What do you believe?
I went to this site called angdatingdaan.org and it really opened my mind. This site is not for those who don't like to read and enpower themself. This is a site for those who don't run from a different out look but are open to things to either prove them wrong or to gain new knowledge.

I believe that Jesus existed before His incarnation, although He wasn't called Jesus then. John called Him the Word; Revelation called Him Michael the archangel, which means literally chief messenger or spokesperson. The JW's believe that Jesus because He's referred to as an angel had to have been created, but that isn't true. They havefailed to see the meaning of the expression "archangel"

Bear in mind too that the bible refers to Christ as the source of all things. He created all things and "by Him all things consist" or are held together by Him. So not only is Christ Creator or Co-Creator with the Father, but He sustains the entire universe. All the laws that govern the universe were made by Him.

Peace!

@ Seun

And what is "in the future" from your own bible translation supposed to mean?

It's not that I disagree with the aricle I posted, but you can't attack me based on its finer points.

I just want to find out what you think about the article. I'm not responsible for it.

You tell me what you think it means. Besides, no one is attacking you Seun! If an article brings into disrepute the bible, then those who read objectively will find the truth. Isn't that what we are all looking for?

Every person has a motive. Nothing is ever done without it. Is yours to find the truth or just to attack the bible?

@ Seun

This is what Jesus said in His hour of being judged by the authorities.

Matthew 26:64
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

You see Dru the problem is solved when we allow scriptures to interpret themselves.

In Matthew 24:15,16 it says:
15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

In Luke 21:20 it says:
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

In Matthew 24 its "holy place"

The problem lies with how people see the expression "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation". They expect to see some lone anti-Christ some time in the future controlling a temple that doesn't exist, and will never.

You see when Jesus made that comment about leaving the then Jerusalem after they see the sign of the armies surrounding Jerusalem as Luke says, it becomes that much clearer that the event had to have been in AD66, when the armies of Rome came the first time. The jewish army somehow defended the temple, but the mistake they made was not to have listened to Jesus' warning to flee the city. Thats why Jesus said "let not your flight be in the winter or on the sabbath day"

Jesus knew that in AD70 General Titus would have returned with a greater force to finally destroy the temple, and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Jews.

So in summary the abomination of desolation was indeed directly caused by the Roman army. If Luke says it they have no choice but to accept.

@ engr17

Why are u guys throwing abuses to an unknown aclaimed man of God and for what reason
U guys don't really know what this gul was putting on(wears) that made this man speak that way

But no one is actually doing that. Pastors need to set an example. Yes its possible that ladies throw themselves at power figures like pastors, but nevertheless he should know better than that.

Many annointed men play with sisters and their spirituality tends to the increase almost daily

Are you for real?

Well we have a basic idea s to what religion is all about, but cultic groups are of such that their members tend to follow their leaders to the T. There is hardly any room for discussin as Dru suggested. Members blindly follow and it would seem there is a certain amount of brainwashing that occured.

The Branch Davidians is a perfect example. Another exampe would be Jim Jones and his followers. And there are modern cults of that nature today as well. We have recently seen them on the news.

Members are not allowed to question what the higher ones teach, or how they choose to interpret the bible. Often you'd hear them say that their present leaders have been handed down the divine "baton" so to speak.

Whats really sad about all this is that innocent family members suffer in the midst of this confusion.

@ Malik

First, I never claimed that I'm an expert in translating from the original. Second, I thought you'd even offer what the original says, but instead you only weaken your arguments all the more by making recourse to the paraphrased versions of the NEB and French Bible. There are lots of Bible helps available, and if you can afford a good one, look at the text in the Greek original and see what the NEB and the French Bible have done. It's simple - the translators have interpolated into that text what the original doesn't say at all. Unless, you'd want to come back claiming that French was the original language of the New Testament.

Who are you to say what millions of French people read to be seen as a paraphrase? I guess to you the German, and Spanish bibles are all paraphrases, only as it affects your interpretation. And just in case you didn't realize, the Greek language didn't even mention the first day of the week, but rather one of the sabbaths, that Paul met with the assembly. It translates as:

"And on one of the sabbaths, us having been assembled to break bread, Paul was lecturing them being about to part on the next day, and was extending the message until midnight"

In other words after the typical sabbath meeting, there was an extended meeting that carried on into the beginning of Sunday. As I have explained before in other sections, the jewish people had their day start at the dark portion of the day which would finish at sundown the following day. What we see as the first day of the week, and what the bible is now talking about, is correctly called Saturday night. Hence Saturday night becomes the first day of the week.

Fascinating. You could agree with the French Bible and NEB and yet choose not to follow what you read in them. That's simply what I can't get in your arguments. If the NEB and French Bible are accurate and help your argument, why then doesn't your group gather in the same fashion on Saturday nights??

I am not sure why you're dwelling on that point about following what we see in the French and other versions that choose to bring out the correct translations, when in truth and in fact thats not the emphasis of my argument. I am merely explaining to you what occured as a result of Paul having a longer than usual meeting that saw him meeting with them until 12 midnight. Its not like that experience was to be seen as a precedent. In fact it was an un-precedented one. It was one of a kind. It was exceptional. I wonder why you fail to see the real point.

If the first day of the week happens to be the seventh day of the week according to your reckoning, then the seventh day shouldn't actually be the seventh day by the same reckoning.

hahaa, ah boy! Forgive me for finding you real amusing. I didn't say that the first day of the week is the seventh day. I am saying that we reckon the days differently than how they were done in days of the dsiciples. For example we begin our day at midnight, according to the Roman set up to which some people have clung to still. In those days a new day started at sunset, and ended 24 hours after that. So lets say the apsotles gathered on a sabbath which we call today Saturday. At Sunset the day would have finished, and the first day would have begun. So in actual fact our saturday night would have been their starting of Sunday.

Bear in mind that the dark part of a day came first according to Genesis[b], "and the evening and the morning was the first day" [/b]

You can't have both the seventh and first day translating into the same day.

But you keep saying that as if anyone suggested that. Again I repeat this is not the case accoring to Acts 20

This is what the NEB and the French Bible haven't explained to you, and one should be careful to take a so-called 'translation' all in if the said translation or version carries just the translators thoughts, rather than what the texts say.

Yet the original greek doesn't use the phrase first day of the week either, so we can safely assume that what you are accustomed to is really other translators' personal thoughts. So in essence I don't need the NEB or French, or Spanish bibles to sustain what I have already gathered from the Greek.

There is one common thread that runs throughout the NT, and that is the sabbath was kept by christians. No where do you find Paul in all of his missionary journeys even remotely suggesting that Sunday was now the new Lord's day. If something was as important as that, don't you think that for one moment, something would have been said about such a change?

This is what happened in the case of the Living Bible which was withdrawn because it failed to faithfully deliver what the Bible actually says in many texts.

I don't know the details of that, but you can't grow suspicious of all translations becasue of that incident, can you?

Now with the Sunday issue,

(1) What do you think God is going to do to those Christians who worship Him on Sunday, the first day of the week?

Well I worship Him on Sunday too. I worship everyday. On the other hand those who gather on Sundays in order to commemorate the resurrection, do so in ignorance. Its never a question as to what will do, but what God is now doing. He is using His remnant church to reveal this particular error among christians. He's calling back his stray sheep to come back to the fold.

The LovePeddler of Revelation(the RCC) has many daughters(false protestantism) who have drunken her wine of fornication. Those organizations who keep Sunday instead of the Lord's holy day, are being warned to get out of babylon now before its too late. God says "come out of her my people and be not partakers of her sins, " Revelation 18:4

(2) What do you think God will do to those Christians who gathered for worship on the first day of the week as in Acts 20:7?

As was said before that was a one-time occasion. It was never meant to be a precedent.

(3) And what did God do to John who was in Spirit on the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10) - what is the 'Lord's Day' there?

There is only one Lord's day that I know and that has to be the sabbath, of which Jesus is Lord. He Himself said it in Mark 2:27, 28

@Bobby,

You hardly made any point in needlessly repeating yourself.

It was worth repeating.

Scripture is clear enough, and to be honest with you, I really don't know what the NEB translators had in mind by interpolating their own thoughts into a text where it never read what they put there.

How would you know that? Are you an expert in translating from the original. If you have a problem with the NEB then how do you explain what the French bible says:

Acts 20:7-12 (ACTES 20:7-12)
7 Le samedi soir, nous etions reunis pour prendre le repas de la communion at Paul parlait a l'assemblee.

Allow me to translate. "On Saturday evening, we were assembled to take the cummunion meal and Paul spoke to the gathering."

Clear as crystal. What you thought was a typical Sunday morning gathering, turned out to be what we would refer to as a Saturday night's gathering, or after sunset gathering.

Think about it for a moment: you often argue for the seventh day; and if one is to go by your reckoning, then the seventh day of the week should not really be the seventh day!

I am not too certain what you're getting at here. Care to expand?

Meanwhile, are you saying that in your assembly, your Christian meetings are held on Saturday nights? I don't see what sense you're making from the "proof" that NEB suggests,

I didn't say that at all. I was only pointing out what happened in Acts 20:7-12

which in actual fact is no proof at all of what the text says. I don't have any problem with your group gathering for worship on Saturday nights, but the NEB is not saying what the text in Acts 20:7 says.

We don't gather on a Saturday night. We gather in the day.

And for the umpteenth time, I observe that no responses have been forthcoming from you with regards to the questions I raised about Christians gathering on the first day of the week. I take it then that you won't be bothered with that as you probably have nothing to say thereto.

So weren't Acts 20:7-12 and 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, being the most used texts by you, addressed by me before, and just now? These are the texts that all advocates of a Sunday-keeping early church use as so-call proof. But as I have revealed in more than one occasions, those texts have been grossly mis-understood. You cannot read into a passage what you think it should be saying.

Wish you all the best in life. Bye!

You desire me to bring evidence in favour of creation?

You already have the evidence. Just take a hard look around you and see the macro evidence. If you desire micro evidence look through an electron microscope.

What do these sources have in common? Order and design, the likes of which didn't come by chance.

Christians don't need to go into nitty gritty details about evidence, for we don't need to since we have a personal relationship with the Creator Himself who has revealed Himself to us in nature and Divine Revelation. In time you will come to know Him, or know about Him.

He has given you the free will to choose the ToE even above Him, but in time you'll come to see that that choice would have been the wrong one.

I am going to leave a text with you:

Revelation 21:6-8
6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Repent while you have time. Now is the hour to reject all man-made doctrines that have their source in Satan, and listen to God's calling. What if at the end of this road you discover that what you learned to accept as truth is all a lie? What then?

Peace!

You desire me to bring evidence in favour of creation, huh?

You already have the evidence. Just take a hard look around you and see the macro evidence. If you desire micro evidence look through an electron microscope.

What do these sources have in common? Order and design, the likes of which didn't come by chance.

Christians don't need to go into nitty gritty details about evidence, for we don't need to since we have a personal relationship with the Creator Himself who has revealed Himself to us in nature and Divine Revelation. In time you will come to know Him, or know about Him.

He has given you the free will to choose the ToE even above Him, but in time you'll come to see that that choice would have been the wrong one.

I am going to leave a text with you:

Revelation 21:6-8
6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Repent while you have time. Now is the hour to reject all man-made doctrines that have their source in Satan, and listen to God's calling. What if at the end of this road you discover that what you learned to accept as truth is all a lie? What then?

Peace!

@ Malik@Bobby,

There's no need to be tedious about this by repeating what is unsustained in Scripture, unless you really believe that the first day of the week mentioned in Acts 20:7 was a Saturday!

Its obvious you never read my response to this text, but for the benefit of those who should read this section of the thread, I will repeat. I will also cover again 1 Corinthians 16: 1,2 as well

Acts 20:7-12

Before I begin let me lay down a principle about how the Jews and early jewish christians viewed the day in terms of when it started and finished. Its important for my explanation.

The bible teaches that each day begins at sundown and ends the next sundown. (Genesis 1:15, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31); Leviticus 23:32) The dark part of the day naturally began the day. The sabbath for them began Friday night sundown and would end on what we call Saturday night. In fact using their reckoning, our Saturday night would have really been their Sunday evening or the dark part of Sunday. The meeting recorded in Acts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, seeing that the dark part of a day begins the day, and what we call today as Saturday night.

Proof of that lies in this version of the New English bible whose opening line says:

Acts 20:7-12 NEB
"On the Saturday night in our assembly, , "

Every indication points to a late night meeting by Paul which lasted till 12 midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these people again before his death (see verse 25). No wonder he preached so long and normally no weekly service would have lasted so long in those days, anyway. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.

So what about the breaking of bread you might ask. Was this any indication that that occassion was a special and normal customary gathering? Absolutely not, because the breaking of bread was never confined to a day for they broke bread every day (see Acts 2:6) With that being the case the breaking of bread has no "Lord's day" significance whatsoever. In fact there is no scriptural indication in this passage that the first day was the norm or customary gathering for early christians. Nor is there the remotest clue of a change from sabbath to the first day of the week.

1 Cor. 16:1,2

1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

is this what you're using to show the change? , sorry but I find it funny how people see what isn't there. Anyway thee is no reference here about a customary gathering or church meeting. In fact the expression "lay by him in store" literally means form the Greek store at your house/home

In other words each christians was to save up something for the poor so that Paul woudn't waste time having to do all that when he passed through. They were written a letter from before telling them to store the stuff at home, and not at church as some would have us believe. These christiasn were sabbath keepers and that is why Paul suggested that they do some work on Sunday and make the necessary preparation. Its as simple as that. The raging famine that prevailed would no doubt have affected the poor brethren in Asia Minor. All bills and accounts were normally settled on a Sunday. Both the french and spanish bibles say the same thing about storing the stuff at home. In French it says:

" doit mettre de cote chez lui" which means "place by your side at home"

Thats the solid truth my friend. Sooner or later the inevetable will unfold.

But you're on the road and you don't even know it. Soon you'll see the end of the road, and that it is a dead end. By thenHi how goes?
it might/will be too late. Wake up its broad day light. Now is not the time to sleep. 

@ Malik

I have addressed all the scriptures that others have used including you to prove that Sunday was a day that early christians gathered for worship.

Not one of those scriptures show or indicate that such was the case. Of the eight references used in the NT there is absolutely none that categorically show a precedent for Sunday gathering. If you need me to repaet the context behind them I would be too glad to do so again.

What evidence have you supplied? Yours or what others have said existed? Read between the lines with a mind of your own. Don't swallow everything in the name of science. True science supports the bible and creation.

Pseudo-science supports abiogeneis, and the ToE.

You haven't reached the end of the road yet, but when you do you'll see its only a dead end for you. wake up!

The main links among the molecules-to-man theory would have to amount to millions for such a theory to come close to being accepted. The point is all these developments supposedly took place over billions of years according to the advocates of abiogenesis. They are yet to prove or show evidence of the links between:

1) how did the very molecules that they stress actually came about. They had to have come from somewhere, and even if they came from a source, where did such a source come from?

2) how simple molecules move to become complex molecules

3) complex molecules becoming simple oragnic molecules

4) simple organic molecules becoming complex organic molecules

5) complex organic molecules becoming DNA or similar information-storage molecules

6) and finally getting all these into a cell which is even far more complex in its structure than anything built by man.


Seriously now, would you expect people with common sense to believe that all these developments took place on their own, just by natural chance?

Goodly people can you find a more faith-based religion than this one called abiogenesis?  

Even a Nobel prize winner had this to say:

"Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves."
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner"

Abiogenesis is absurd and you know it, so don't continue with the absurdity any longer.

Life can only come from life. You cannot make life from dead chemicals. There is no science to explain the mysteries of life.

Ever wondered why all these scientists are so excited when they discover something on Mars or some other planet? Its because they are hoping to find something that would back up their athiestic views and theories.

If other planets went through a similar experience, like planet earth, seeing that they belong to the same galaxy, why aren't any life forms present on those planets? Why hasn't abiogenesis occured? hahahahahahaha,

Spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago to lack real and substantive evidence, but somehow certain protaganists of abiogenesis can't seem to sleep at nights, so thay have nothing better to do but fill up in peoples' heads with sophisticated yet highly speculative jargon.

Its always easy for people to say that abiogenesis occured, but wouldn't it be more in their favour to say how it can happen. Why not give us a break down using present-day chemical and biomolecular materials to prove the facts. Instead you all play mind games with people, at least the average people, knowing fully well that no one gives a hoot and interest in looking at the details, because if they did the truth will come out.

In fact the law of probability for the chance of abiogenesis occurng is 1:10 to the power of 50 according to higher mathematics, which makes this totally impossible.

In essence dead chemicals cannot guide themselves into such orderly and complex formations. There had to be a designer who intricately placed things in place for life to have begun and contnue as is.

Goodly readers w eare faced with two choices and chances that have to do with how life began. All we need to know is if one of those chances is wrong to accept the other as true. Both can't be true, and both can't be wrong. Its either or either. (eether or ither)

So statistically God comes out the winner. Modern science and higher mathematics in their own unique way continue to prove the reality.

@ Nferyn

The second coming was prophecised to happen within the lifetime of some of his disciples, why hasn't he come yet?

The problem with you is that you stumble over biblical expressions you don't understand. Jesus made a statement within context and you're trying to isolate a text or two out of context to make a point.

It doesn't work that way. Look for the weight of evidence and see the general meaning of things before going to the specific. Thats the thumb rule for a proper understanding of scriptures.

You're a sceince person right? If I just out of the blue referred you to a rather complex thought that seemed far fetched, wouldn't you be lost somewhere if you didn't understand the basics that led up to that complex thought or idea?

When it comes to difficult passages like the ones you like to throw in peopel's faces, wouldn't it be wise to try and understand those passages in the original hebrew or aramaic languages, just to see exactly what was said.

Secondly wouldn't it be wise to try and understand what Jesus was trying to tell His disciples? Don't you realize that Jesus often spoke in codes that later required a response from His disciples about something He said that they didn't seem to understand?

Thirdly, there are many biblical renditions with very poor translations. That factor has to be borne in mind when quoting texts.

@ Oracle

I know the sabbath is meant to be on the seventh (7) day and itz meant fore resting,
but i don't know if itz saturday or sunday.

Most of christendom has accepted that Jesus rose on a Sunday, including me. Matthew 28 specifically said that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, and if the first day of the week is Sunday and you count 6 days after that, you will arrive at Saturday being the seventh day.

As a matter of fact the week as a cycle has not lost anything. From creation week way down to our time the week has been the same.

And you do all that in 24hrs?

What is this question related to? I am not getting you.

If I decide not to watch sports on the sabbath day, but decide to listen to the news, wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?

Nobody is telling to do both. My understanding of rest as I said encompasses the physical, mental, and emotional. Its one thing to rest physically, its quite another matter to have your mind wandering over the place and delving in things that are not spiritual.

Lordipamq said previously that I am not supposed to do, on the sabbath day, things I do on normal days, like surfing the net, watching premiership, and alike.  And now, you are telling me it's not about physical rest, but mental.  Who am I supposed to believe now?  Because I guess you both have the same beliefs about this Sabbath issue.

I am extending on what Lordimpaq said. Besides, you're misquoting me. You make it sound as if I am only saying its mental rest. I am saying the rest is all-inclusive. Physically I could be resting but my mind could be wondering all over the place, thinking about maters that are not spiritually related.

But then, if this definition of yours is acceptable, then I don't think going to church will be necessary then.  As a matter of fact, there are more distractions in church than you'd find if you were just observing the sabbath quietly in your room.  I also wonder what type of 'mental rest' you'll be having while in church.

I don't think you understand. The level of rest being emphasised, is the rest from mundane things, and not so much a rest from Godly and or spiritual things. Jesus taught in the temple every sabbath as His custom was. He even healed the sick on the sabbath. As a carpenter he rested. Mary rested. Joseph rested from his labours during the holy hours.

Also, for those who do not have personal cars of their own, by boarding a public transport, have they not encouraged others to work, while 'they' are supposedly going to observe the sabbath?  Even they have worked too!  Because by paying the transport fare, you have transacted already.  Infact, if you buy anything on that day, then you have not observed the sabbath at all.

Thats an age-old topic, but nonetheless is worth an answer. Look at it this way. If I had no personal vehicle of my own and I were faced with a choice in using public transport to get to church, or to stay home, I'd take the public transport to church. Why you might ask? Its because we have no better choice. We have no control about how the world is set up today. This present world isn't set up to accommadate true worship. Its set up to make things easy and convinient for people in general. As a result don't expect an ideal sabbath observance fom those who keep the day. When we do our best God will do the rest. Staying home to prove that you're a perfect sabbath observer doesn't prove a thing. To do otherwise would be to take a pharasaical approach.

By the way, anything that relives me of stress is my own definition of rest, whether physical or mental.  And who says I can't keep God in mind while doing other things?

True, you can keep God in mind even during one's working hours, or anytime for that matter, but the sabbath was designed for us to rest so that we could give full attention to Godly matters for a longer time and to refresh our bodies. Its a day totally dedicated to Him.

Yes Jesus and the apostles kept the feast days, but that was before Jesus died. After Jesus died those feast days lost their significance.

The creation sababth is the only one that is of relevance now. Its the only one that is at the centre of God's eternal law.

So if evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life then what does?

Many , believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted, In recent years, a great many people, having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Thank God reality is reaching home.

@ Nferyn

Just want to ask you one question based on what you said here:

2. Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source.

You're saying here quite confidently that photosynthesis became a source for free oxygen in the atmosphere. That we know about based on observations. I have no doubt about that.

Firstly, if plants use Co2 and energy to manufacture food and oxygen as basic biology reveals, then where did the oxygen come from in the first place to combine with carbon in order to produce Co2, the very molecule that all plants utilize to make food and to release O2? Bear in mind that plants don't actually manufacture Co2. They just happen to use it as part of a process. I hope you see where I am going with this.

Secondly, you mentioned the word today in your statement. Was there a time when photosynthesis as a process wasn't a source of free oxygen in the atmosphere? Was there any other process that facilitated the production of free oxygen in the atmosphere? Just curious.

@ thebadguy

The last time I checked, the hebrew verb for Sabbath is "Shabbath", which means 'To rest from labour'. So when I watch premiership or surf the net on that day, am I not resting enough? Or how do you define 'rest'?

I must hasten to say that the rest is more extensive than just the physical rest. It involves a mental and emotional rest as well, from the things of the world. If you're a student then you must rest from school work; if you're a sports enthusiast and you're accustomed to viewing such sporting activities during the week, then you also decist from such.

The purpose of the sabbath would have been thwarted if all God expected of us is to just rest physically. There had to have been a mental ascent towards Him, seeing that the whole purpose of resting was to highlight His Creatorship. Its all about Him.

The science of psychology can explain "sin" quite well. You should read more about it!

Unless of course you're changing the definition of psychology which is the study of the mind, or the study of behaviour. Sin is quite a different kettle of fish, at least from a biblical perspective. Psychology as a medical science attempts to explain why people do the things they do be it good or bad. I am not sure I can bring myself to accepting some of the reasons put forward by some of these specialist.

The bottom line is this; you cannot explain away sin with excuses in the form of scientific opinion about people's behaviour. That is why people are having problems making a distinction between what is wrong and what is right. Everything seems to fall under what seems right to the individual. As long as its ok with you then you're free to do it.

Can you explain how sin causes volcanic eruption, earthquakes and Tsunamis? What about those who are bitten by snakes or attacked by wild animals? Can you explain how sin causes malaria and sickle cell anemia?

That would depend on how you were brought up to understand the notion of sin. When we use the term sin we use it in a braod sense to mean, anything that counteracts God's creation in all its forms. When God made this part of the universe He made laws to govern it. These laws are natural as we have come to see them act out in nature.

Now sin is seen as a counter force that entered our world because of disobedience to God laws. ( 1 John 3:4 says its lawlessness)Its like a law unto itself that is in motion breaking down the world and its natural laws bit by bit. Thats why we have been having earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, psunamis, floods, hurricanes, etc. It would also encompass the affect its been having in the lives of men, and animals. We see the results of selfishness, pride, murder, etc. in the way humans behave, and we also see the change in behavioural patterns among animals that pose a constant threat to human lives. So its a wide cross section of life that has been by the consequences of sin.

The natural question is why isn't God doing anything to stop it? He has no choice but to allow it to run its course. This is the hard lesson we must learn as humans, until the change or restoration comes. As humans our only hope is to accept God's gift in the form of His Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

I guess I'll just wait on Nferyn to respond.

@ nferyn

Or rather your strawman version thereof.

I plead my 5th amendment.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time.

Why not? That's what happened, whether you introduce God as explanatory factor or simply natural processes.  You seem to have a knack for arguments from personal incredulity.

Dead chemicals cannot make life, period. Its just not natural. If you desire to believe that go ahead!

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time period

Care to expand that one. I have no idea what you mean with uniformistic view and what it's scientific basis may be.

I am not surprised you wouldn't care to explain, or pretend to not know about the uniformist idea, so you resorted to me. I can only depend on what you guys say among yourselves. So if I use your own science against you, then why are you surprised? The iniformistic view basd on what I have read says that all processes remain the same over long periods of time. The early earth it is conviniently believed had no oxygen, because those advocates knew that self-assembling molecules, and especially the biomolecules couldn't survive in oxygen at all. Only God knows how molecules could self assemble anyway, but that is another matter. I am saying that geological evidence point to an oxidizing atmosphere, as indicated by the foundation rocks possessing oxidised ferrous iron, and also the vast amount of limestone present, together with large amounts of mineral distribution in sedimentary rocks.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
wouldn't hold true in the case of Oxygen being used by living cells today as a natural part of their body's chemical processes.

Oxidation is an process that releases usable energy. Doesn't seem unnatural that it was selected for. Why can't it be part of a body's chemical processes? Actually the release of usable energy through oxidation is carried out in the mitochondria for most species. These mitochondria are bacterial invaders that moved beyond an ordinary symbiotic relationship to become part of our anabolism. Maybe you can read the work of Margulis to inform yourself.

That wasn't the point I made. I was referring to the fact that because processes are supposed to continue based on the uniformistic view, then the fact that the earth started out without oxygen in relation to lifeforms, then how is it now we find that animals cannot survive with out it.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today?

Simple, only after the development of photosynthesis and the release of sufficient levels of oxygen in the atmosphere co you have the conditions for the use of oxidation as mechanism for the release of usable energy. As aerobic energy processes are far less damaging than anaerobic processes, it's only natural that aerobic processes get selected for. Doesn't mean that anaerobic processes are no longer available, they usually end up as backup processes. just look up the ATP cycle and you'll know what I'm talking about.

So somehow the plants found a way to make oxygen without oxygen?   If my memory serves me right, photosynthesis is the process involving plants using CO2, energy, etc; to make O2 and food, right. What is CO2 made up of? Isn't it a combination of O2 and carbon? How can there be photosynthesis without CO2, and if CO2 is needed then where how did the C find the O2 to react with, if there were no O2 present?

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.

If you compare the damage caused by anaerobic processes and more importantly the overall energy efficiency of aerobic processes compared to anaerobic processes, then using oxidation seems to be a fair trade-off, after all, organisms should maximise reproduction, not lifespan. Once more, you really are fond of arguments from personal incredulity.

Thats why God made everything perfectly from the beginning. He knew that sin would have caused all this change naturally, including how dangerous oxygen would become as a free radical. Hence all cells were made with outer membranes, and the organelles had inner membranes so as to provide future protection from all free radicals. All plants have in-built protection called carotenoids, or anti-oxidants, that when consumed by humans prolong life. In the beginning is it surprising that God in His wisdiom placed mankind on a plant diet?

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
That is why the advocates came up with this grand idea that the early earth's atmosphere had no oxygen surrounding it.

Far less than today at least. Free oxygen in the atmosphere is mainly there because of photosynthesis.
Quote from:

This is absurd an argument to say the least. Co2 cannot exist without Oxygen my friend. For plants to use Co2 there has to be a reaction betwen C and O, before you can have Co2. How else could thee have been photosynthesis?


Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Of course how could a young earth have protected itself and its life forms, if there were no protetion from the UV radiation coming from the Sun, via the Ozone layer.

- the young earth didn't need to protect itself from UV radiation. Rock does not need protection from UV radiation
- the early life forms were very different from today's, what makes you assume that there was a need for protection in the first place. Biochemical decay caused by radiation could have increased the mutation rate and reduce the copying fidelity of the replicators ensuring a faster paced evolution. What's your point?

I didn't say rocks needed protection. I said earth and its lifeforms. You say lifeforms were different, but obviously they were more fragile than now seeing the TOE implies gradual perfection. Its logical then that whatever danger UV light poses now it posed a bigger problem then. I am certain the sun hasn't become less intense has it? If there were no ozone layers to protect the young earth then, then why do we need it now? Why is it that scientists are crying out for us to protect the ozone layer? Without an ozone layer the earth would have fried, including its lifeforms. If heat waves are killing people today then what about life in its early stages then? The theory doesn't hold. Its senseless.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
The bible solves that problem when it said that God put everything in place during His creation. For which there

is no evidence. None, nada, zilch.

You will soon see. Prepare to met thy Creator God soon.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
All life forms had their own built in protection, although the newly created earth and its atmosphere posed no problem as such.

Obviously not. In self-contained phantasy stories those kind of problems are non-existent.

Soon when the Creator God of the universe will re-create this world, where as it was in the beginning it shall be in the end.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There was never any evidence from the start that the earth in earlier times had no oxygen.

Wich is a strawman statement only a creationist can make. Who ever said there was no oxygen on the earth?

So why all the explanations above? wasn't it apart of the teaching that the early earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere? Familiar with the term reducing atmosphere? Its either the O2 is so low or there is none at all, and/or the only gases present are reducing gases. H2 and methane etc; all of which you're familair with.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
In fact there are geological evidences that show unquestionably, that the earth as far back as can be dated, based on limestone formation, and the presence of ferrous iron found in foundation rocks, proves their conjecture false.

Strawman. Ellaborate your reasoning and provide sources for it. Currently it means very little.

Why should I when the geologists have already elaborated.

There ia a lot more to come. I am not finished with you as yet. I am taking it piece by piece.