₦airaland Forum

paulGrundy:
Why would you be linking me to Yooguyz? Yooguyz is a Troll, you can never engage him in a sensible conversation like this

Thank God

Am not suprised he said such, you don't expect him to say it was real did you?

Why are you still living in denial?? How many of those who doubted Jo's claims knew or said the characters were different? Even then, has Jo himself not admitted they were 2 different people?

Of course I expected a honest person to tell what he sees and that's what Boss13 did.

Lies may prevail for sometime, but the truth will surely be exposed. We never can be so sure of anything.

Of course. This is my belief hence I refrained from fighting some battles on NL. God will always expose lies like this 'Jo and Jeff' saga.

NB: please go back to my original post, I edited some elements out of it after you quoted it.

That's good, though I think some pepple would have quoted it already and you won't be able to erase it from their posts.

paulGrundy:
Yes know that, l'll address that after I her his own account of events.

Which other account are u waiting for? Did you not read his post on the expose thread?

Excuse me? I never insulted anyone, maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.

Are you yooguyz or not? Have you never jeered at those who questioned these 'miracle' claims? Did you not even call sir john a vulture and other terrible appelations on the thread you opened in Jo's defence? Abeg stop forming holier than thou.

That's exactely the problem am trying to address! Ever before sirJohn posted the evidence of his claim on the 8th thread, you guys had already been calling him names e.g fraud, charlatan. How else do you expect us not to think that a nairaland mob is puppetering things in the background. The person in question is in good standing among some nairaland members e.g Gombs and mabel. I remember Mabel saying at a thread that she verified one of JO's miracles. Let's be careful about our choice of words, because we shall give account for every wrong word we used on earth on the last day.

Ever since Jo posted his video, Boss13 had raised the alarm that the 2 characters were different people, I thought it was a false alarm and I duly avoided making any comment but that should have made you, Jo and the rest to exercise caution but alas, you were more interested in projecting the miracle worker in your midst than establishing truth.

You say Jo is in good standing, who isn't? Is it Sir John or the Kenyan that isn't in good standing? Why didn't you preach understanding when they were being pummeled from every angle? Even on the thread you opened, have you nit concluded sir john an extortioner, liar, fraud and bad belle person? In any case, do you expect Mabell or Gombs to snitch on joagbaje? Abeg stop forming novice.

I hope you too are careful about your words, actions and those you support and refuse to question even in the face of glaring deceit. God judges all these too.

paulGrundy:
Am not pained by anything, am after the truth, if you are angry, its probably because of my insinuations about you in my thread, which was based on my perception NOT facts.

What truth are you looking for? What truth is it that you can't find in joagbaje's desperate explanation? What truth are you looking for after joagbaje himself has apologised for the misrepresentations? That your thread is as useless as they come. I tell u this just in case nobody has been nice enough to tell u

You've finally enlarged the doctors report, and I have seen it, I have seen that it was HIV (+ve). What we don't know is if that was his doctors report before he got his healing. I think its wise to hear the other side of the story before jumping into conclusion. Jo maybe taking too long because he is trying to get his facts together. Don't get the mistaken impression that I hate you. I can't read peoples intentions, but if have a wrong motive for doing what you are doing, you'll face the consequences that one is for sure.

So its now wise to hear the other side right? When you all were jumping up and down insulting, abusing and cursing the Kenyan, Sir John and every other person who urged caution, you lacked the wisdom of hearing the other side abi? If anything, this episode has shown who has the spirit of Christ between you guys and Sir John. The gentleman has simply refused to twist the dagger to make the final kill like you cruel jesters would have done if positions were reversed. He's still allowing Jo a very soft landing.

Suddenly, you can no longer laugh as you used to do with your yooguyz moniker?

There can never be anything wrong about exposing fraud. In fact it becomes doubly urgent to expose it if its done in God's name. We are all witnesses to the havoc spiritual charlatans and their shenanigans have caused gullible people. If you've become impervious to them, good for you but some still have a functioning conscience that pricks them when they keep quiet in the face of evil.

StarBoard:
He who lives by the sword should be prepared to die by same.
it is unreasonable to give something to someone eho has abused the priviledge of such.

The insulting and demeaning language used by Joe and his cohorts who are slowly coming out of their holes to his defense on previous threads on this matter would indicate that he does not deserve the benefit. Simples.

When tjeir fingers were itching did they realize that a time would come when the very essence of their position would come under severe scrutiny as it os now?

For me the video evidence is damning and there is absolutely nothing to hear.

@the bolded is testament to SirJohn's maturity, cool, calm and collected nature. I've asked him to tell me how he is able to maintain his patience in the face of the attacks he's received over these issues without returning fire for fire.

I know I would have struggled to remain calm.

Gombs:
Don't mind them jare... Joagbaje could have esily bribed Jeff... and we would not have been here to start with.

...but he didn't

My friend Gombs, after all you've said about honesty on your thread?? After all you did to put nannymcphee down over a seeming error?? After falsely attacking shdemidemi of being vooks?? After all joagbajes bragging on that thread?? After all the abuse and curses you and others rained on sirJohn?? Would you have been this 'nice' and 'conciliatory' if DrummaBoy or SirJohn were the ones being quizzed here??

So This is all you can say about joagbaje's about turn?? I see you as a gentleman and I think you owe Sir John an apology for starters.

One thing that sticks out with all the developments of recent times particularly the ones emanating from CE is that the satanic godhood theory is being blown to smithereens. The traits being displayed is disappointing enough for a human, never mind a god.

We are all humans after all and are prone to mistakes. This is the lesson from this saga. Its well with us all.

Pastor joagbaje, pls continue.

mbaemeka:
I agree with most if not all you have said above. What I was trying to say to my brother is that righteousness and salvation from sin or even having a sound mind isn't ONLY what we inherited from God through Christ's death. God's ability or desire to help his children get wealth and health has not ceased as a result, if anything it persists and has even increased. What will be extreme is for people to say that Christ does not give us wealth and so we have to get it on our own. Another extreme will be that we can ONLY get it through Christ.

OK more or less.

The truth remains that for anyone to be considered truly rich in God's eyes it will have to be by God's help and in service to God.

The question then comes: what is "true riches" in God's eyes? Forbes has their rich list where folks like Alakija, Gates, Dangote and Oyedepo feature. Is their yardstick the same as God's?

James 2:5 KJV
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Will God regard Alakija a better rich woman than those James described above as rich in faith?

It is the same with health, security, soundness of mind etc. Someone can say as long as I have my security guards in check I am safe- I don't need security from Christ (and in the physical he might appear safe)

Psalm 127 King James Version (KJV)
1 Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

This verse for e.g does not say that the men won't build the house or that the watchmen won't watch it, just that they would do it in vain. In other words, at the end of the day, it would amount to nothing in God's eyes.

Of course except God does it, man will only strive in vain. The medical breakthroughs that have saved millions around the world are evidence of God's goodness to not only us Christians but also Muslims, pagans, atheists etc and he uses all sorts of people to do them. Whether the Muslims in Dubai acknowledge it or not, God gave them the wisdom to arrange their country almost perfectly that prompts Christians like you and I to flock there for holidays.

God's sovereignty in all spheres is incomprehensible and incontestable. Except God decides, even the prayer warrior or faith proponent will only exercise in vain.

mbaemeka:
As per Mrs Folorunso Alakija, I mentioned her to show you that I can play that game as well. You guys like to call Billionaire Atheists to argue that if it were God who gives wealth, they wouldn't be rich (I don't know whoever said so). All we have said is that God has the power to make anyone rich and if God blesses you, you will be rich and in health etc.

Mrs Folorunso like any other christian is waiting for the redemption of her body- the Immortal body. That's what we are waiting for. She's not waiting for health and wealth in heaven where she would not need it.

@the bolded, if only the pastors who shout the lie that a man can't be prosperous without sowing into the kingdom (their ministries are of course the best way to do this) really believe this. God pours blessings on all mankind, not just Christians. See what Christ said below

Matthew 5:45 KJV
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Any madman not afraid to pull the trigger of a gun and shed blood can be a billionaire (eg Tompolo, Ateke and Asari), it doesn't mean anything. God sends rain both on the just and the unjust. God allowed them. Any tailor (Alakija) with the right connections (maryam Babangida) can become an oil well owner and a billionaire, God gave the chance. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Mark Zuckerberg wouldnt be where they are today if God didn't allow them the chance. This is the truth no matter how much they deny his existence. This is why I'll always stand firm on the truth that money or lack of it proves and means nothing, absolutely nothing at all with respect to a man's spiritual standing. Christ said a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things he possesses.

If its mammon, the world will always beat the Christian in its acquisition. No one needs Christ to make money despite the lies we hear from some mog regularly. What is impossible to get without Christ is salvation from sin leading to eternal life and that is what should stand Alakija out, not her billions whether they are tainted or not.

If you're blessed with health or wealth, thank God for you. The satanist next door probably has them too maybe in bigger proportions than you. What is important is the imputed righteousness of Christ open only to those who come to Christ. This is the only thing that distinguishes a Christian from the world.

musKeeto:
Candour, pastorkun una don vote? Vivly is the only choice.

Able Muskeeto, why dem lock the thread when I wan vote na Abi na for rigging thingz?

I must vote o

shdemidemi:
Why bring this issue here when we have a whole thread to ourself, are you this immature!
If you must quote me, please quote me right.
SPEAKING IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE (guttural sound had no pronunciation) IS DIFFERENT FROM SPEAKING IN TONGUES(languages).

vooks:
My brother, that thread was about NT prophets not tongues

Can you support this dichotomy from scriptures?

I thought Gombs 'proved' vooks and shdemidemi are one and the same? What is the reason then for this internal argument Abi somebody is arguing with himself?

You brodas shouldn't make me get angry with you 'both' o

nlMediator:
But the Scripture never said that the miracle was about the snake's mouth being shut. You're the one suggesting that. In Daniel's case, the Scripture was clear. Here, the Scripture starts by telling us the people's impression. While that may not be a yardstick, the Scripture would have been clear to tell us the miracle was the snake's mouth being shut and thereby correct the people's erroneous impression. By leaving that impression uncorrected, we are left to hold on to it.

The people also had the impression that he was a murderer, then they changed it to he was a god, yet those impressions were not corrected probably because they were very irrelevant. The important thing is that a snake came in contact with Paul's hand and it couldn't harm him or hurt him. That was sufficient as a miracle and that's what the scriptures told us. That's what we should hold on to.

Gombs:
Heheheheheh

You have a great sense of humor. Hope you're good?

Sure

Cheers

Gombs:
Ok, thanks for your opinion. Make sure you go take up serpents! I have left it for you your way!

You know say me I no dey claim say i be god neither am i a trained snake charmer or handler. Normal Humans steer clear of wild animals

Gombs:
Baba how far na!

Why didn't God stop The 3 Hebrew children from being thrown in the furnace? So, the miracle now was God stopping the mouth odf the Viper, shey? Why then, Paul, who had enough Holy Spirit like Jesus, on seeing a snake hugging his hand, shook it into the flame. Why didn't he exercise dominion like Jesus did with wild animals?

Was he scared? Some cretinous post here said it was reflex action, right?

Boils down to God's sovereignty. You can't put God in a box. God could have stopped the 3 Hebrew children from being thrown into the furnace or allowed them to be burnt and then raise them back, who are you to ask him why? He could have made Nebuchadnezzer to go dumb or cause his hand to wither as he gave the command like king Jeroboam's. Who would have told him that's not how to do a miracle? God could have allowed the viper to mutilate Paul's hand, then returned the hand to a state like that of a new born baby. Who is the mortal to tell him how to run the show or do his thing?

That scripture didn't mention a bite. Its safer to leave it that way. The miracle is that a viper came in contact with Paul, yet was powerless to cause him harm. Christ said "they shall take up a serpent and it will not hurt them". That incidence of Paul tallied with that promise. Just leave it that way

nlMediator:
Besides, it's amazing to see how many pages devoted to this story here. All in a bid to deny that God can save from snakes?

Is God shutting the mouth of the snake and preventing it from biting not miracle enough? Or you think God is powerless to stop the snake from biting like he closed the mouth of the lions? Doesn't God preventing a bite also mean God saved Paul?

Why paint a false picture that folks are denying the power of God in that instance?

nlMediator:
The analogy is not apt. When the lions did not bite Daniel, the king and people saw it that way and knew what the miracle was. When the snake came on Paul, the people did not conclude that he survived because the snake did nothing to him. Why, because they were expecting him to swell and die, which woudn't the case if they didn't think the viper struck. And when that did not happen, they thought the gods have showed up. That's not the reaction of people who think the miracle was that the vipwer stayed quietly. It's OK for people to say that the people thought Paul was bitten when he was not. But it's not OK to say that the people saw he was not bitten and then thought it was a miracle. Both cannot go together here.

The people were free to imagine what they saw. It wouldn't be the first time and there's no legislation against wrong or faulty assumptions.. Even the disciples imagined they heard Jesus tell Peter that John the beloved would live till the second coming when nothing he said there remotely suggested that(John 21:21-23). It wasn't the first time snakes would have contact with folks in the bible and the bible correctly used bite for the episode in the wilderness. Luke avoided the word "bite" and he knew why. Even today with all the knowledge at our disposal, people would be jolted by a snake wrapping itself on a man's hand. The natural thought would be that the man is dead meat yet we see snake handlers on TV get away with such acts regularly.

They expected Paul to die because such beast was expected to bite. However, their expectation isn't the yardstick to measure biblical fact. The only fact in that scripture is that Paul had a snake fasten itself violently or hostilely to his hand yet he suffered no harm. He could have been bitten, he might not have been bitten. Either scenario is a demonstration of God's power. What I won't do is to add anything to that scripture.

Gombs:
Baba, no vex jare



read through the translation of that greek word, did you also miss the word Hostilely fastened?



So, the viper who was chased by the heat of the fire, just fastened itself on Paul, and Paul now shook it off, instead to taking it away gently, then the Maltans there were watching the film trick, and were expecting him to die? shey?

Paul was bitten, the miracle there was that it did not kill him, why? that's why verse 5 gave us two references.



ok, thanks for your opinion,

If the bible didn't expressly tell you that Daniel slept overnight in a den with lions yet wasn't bitten, would you have believed it? Wouldnt you have said they probably bit him but his flesh was restored? Why do you think the God that shut the lions mouth couldn't have also shut the mouth of the viper? Do you think it has to be thoroughly dramatic for us to acknowledge the finger of God even when the bible is silent on it?

Gombs:
Stop making yourself even more sillier.

get a study bible, read verse 5. It gave two references Mark 16:18, Luke 10:19

any reason(s)?

not that i expect you to reason well now, but for viewers sake. If you think he was bitten, fine.


Baba Candour, what sayeth thou?

You don drag me inside this una derailment again abi?

Actually, I don't see anything about bite in that scripture. The Greek in that scripture is truly "kathapto" which is translated "to fit or fasten to" and has nothing to do with "bite". In fact this is the only instance in scripture where the word "kathapto" is used.

if Paul was actually bitten as you and mba insinuate, the bible didn't say (as far as that scripture is concerned) but it doesn't detract or reduce the miracle God wrought there. I believe preventing the beast from biting Paul was a big enough miracle or will we reduce the enormity of the miracle of Daniel in the lions den because they didn't bite Daniel? Would it have been better appreciated if they bit Daniel and he still survived?

The miracle is that a viper fastened itself to Paul's hand yet couldn't cause him any harm. Shikena.

Gombs post: i can't remember, if i did, it must be a mix up!

Actually there's one on this very thread and in the spirit of ''honestly trying to correct wrong and abusive practices", I took it as a mix up. If you doubt me, I could bring it up.

The point is that we all could make mistakes. I'll very much expect you to attack the veracity of her claims about your church of which she's a member than rubbish her integrity because of a 'blunder' for which she might have cogent explanations. I'm sure if it was one of our big 'mog', you would excuse it as a honest mistake which is the same way Hagin tried to explain away the wrongs of some of the mog in his book.

I believe you're on a quest to establish the truth based on Hagin's book? Pls let's focus on that and its related issues.

Cheers bro

Gombs: Oh! i will.

now, honesty is being questioned. Integrity gone... i can't see how i can believe that was a mere 'mix up'. It 's like me saying i joined CEC 5years ago, thhen go to another thread and say i left Anglican church 2 years back!

Now that honesty is questioned, motive comes into scrutiny. what if;

1. she was a member of CEC and now left for another, and hence to hang a dog, you know what to do to it na!

2.she is a member just few months back? How am i to know for certain, now that honesty has been ruled off?

3. she has been economical with the truth all the while? She said her IPPC IV has been consistent since 2007, a detail se could not mi up all the years, but suddenly mixed up the RCC one?

if she is a member, fine, if not finer. Point is, she could not sell me the "it must be a mix up' line.


Happy weekend bro!

Wao!! I guess nannymcphee can't win any which way then. When she appeared on WOF thread with her probing questions, I assumed she was CEC mole sent to scatter the thread hence my entrance to safely lead her out. Them some of you guys were so happy with her and even sort of reported BabaGnoni to her for further inquisition. Now she's questioning your beliefs and she has suddenly become a suspicious person that you had to go-a-digging? Can you honestly affirm that you've not made a wrong or incorrect assertion on NL since you joined?

Its funny sha

Well, a honest heart fears nothing. If indeed it was a mistake, surely nothing spoil irrespective of your assessment or mine.

Wish you a great evening bro

nannymcphee:
pls kindly, show me where I stated it that I left The Catholic Church 8yrs ago? There must be a mixup somewhere

where it not for the fact that I don't have my baptismal cert & foundation school cert here, I would have uploaded it

eitherway, I don't need to prove how long I have been there or whether I'm truly a member.

I'M A MEMBER OF CHRIST EMBASSY!!!!

Pls show me where I stated that I left RCC 2006 or 8yrs ago

Maybe its a mixup but you actually said it on the WOF thread.

Though I wonder how it invalidates all you said about CEC which are very verifiable or how it impacts the discussion going on here. I'm waiting for Gombs to link them

[size=20pt]3. Believers are called upon to be diligent in business.[/size]

All humans wether christian or pagan is enjoined to be hardworking. It is doubly important for the christian as we are expected to always be examples of all that is good and honourable. This admonition is in direct contrast to the lie being peddled by dishonest men in the pew who claim that giving (to them and their organisations of course) is the ONLY way to prosper.

Hagin said ''Believers cannot expect to prosper if they are not diligent and responsible in discharging their duties in life.



[size=20pt]4. Believers are called upon to be responsible toward their financial obligations.[/size]

Christians must be honourable honest people who meet their obligations as at when due. Christians shouldn't be among those who try to cheat the govt and society in terms of dues, taxes etc. It is unbecoming for Christians to try to cheat and deny their neighbours of their dues or rob the state but we see even Çhristian leaders'boast of doing same. Also Pastor's owing members and refusing to be mature and humble about it (Nannymcphee narrated her friend's story on a thread sometime ago)



[size=20pt]5. Believers have a duty to minister financially to those who have spiritually blessed them.[/size]


A lot of Christians need to change their mindset or improve it about this issue. The disciples Jesus sent out in Luke 10 were asked to receive sustenance from whoever was willing among those they ministered to. We must be willing to share with those who minister and need it. Also, In the scripture Hagin put up, we see apostle Paul take up a collection, not for pastors or bishops but for the poor members of the Jerusalem church who had also being a blessing in time past to the poor among them. This tells us that the minister, layman etc among us must receive support whenever the need arises.

Infact, a minister might be the one to assist needy members of his congregation. Paul exemplified this and even enjoined the Ephesian elders to do likewise

Acts 20:33-35
I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.[34]Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.[35]I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to receive

How many church members have been blackmailed with the ''it is more blessed to give than to receive'' line when infact the first time it was relayed in the bible, Paul directed it to the elders (which must include pastors, bishops etc)?

Resources must flow from those that have to those that have not in the church. May God help us all to abide by this


[size=20pt]6. Ministers have a right to be supported financially by their work in the ministry. [/size]

This follows closely with point 5. People in ministry should be supported. You can't be living large and your leader is struggling to get by. but also, it's wrong for the mog to be swimming in luxuries while the flock are scrapping. We must learn to bear one another's burdens

Gombs:

You are way different! It takes humility to admit wrong, that my friend is commendable! Much respect sir!

go sidon naughty Gombs if only you could have done same with our firstfruits discussion even with mbaemeka's exchanges with me on the issue.

On the placing of Gerar, you and Mba were right afterall. I'm happy sha that i was the only one who held that view. Even vooks wasn't saying the same thing as me. Freedom of thoughts even among 'allies' as against herd mentality.

mbaemeka:
Candour,

Genesis 10:19 NLT

and the territory of Canaan extended from Sidon in the north to Gerar and Gaza in the south, and east as far as Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, near Lasha.

Besides, I used a Map to take my position. You can readily check one online.

ok then i conceed.

Gombs:
Candour na!

Yet when the famine spread in the day of his son Israel, the Bible said it was all over the earth, even if it wasn't, but famine was able to spread from Israel to Egypt.
Gerar - means "lodging-place" – it was a Philistine town and district in what is today south central Israel. Gerar was in Cannan. Isaac moved from one point in Canaan to another, but he was still in Canaan...Study na! Please.

If you look at a map of the land during Isaac's generation, you will see that Gerar is the last inhabited city in Canaan before entering the Wilderness of Shur along the well traveled caravan route between the nation of the Philistines and Egypt.

Up to this point, Isaac was going by formula. But when the Lord appeared to him, he said He did not want Isaac to go to Egypt, but rather to stay in Canaan and the Lord promised to bless him there (where famine was raging). The Lord was doing a different thing in Isaac's day than Abraham's and it was critical to flow with His plan. The same is true for every generation.

If Gera was in Cannan, how then was Gerar not affected be the famine?

Anyways, I'm not here to convince you. Thanks

Gerar was a philistine land and the philistines were not Canaanites. The bible is very clear on that.

Also famine in the bible doesn't mean it covered the earth everytime. infact See the case of Ruth's future family

Ruth 1:1
Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land, And a certain man of Bethlehem-Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons

Elimelech left Bethlehem and went to Moab to escape famine, yet Moab was only about 30Miles (48km) to Bethlehem using it's shortest more rugged route and 60miles(96km) using a smother longer route. Check your map. Not all famine in the bible affected everywhere. Anytime it did, the bible was very specific

mbaemeka:
Candour,

You are right about Genesis 26 but I would show you a few discrepancies and by so doing maybe answer the questions directed at me.

1. Abraham and Isaac lived in Canaan as you said but Canaan was a very big region that encompassed Sidon to the north and then Gerar to the south. This region was governed by kings called Abimelechs.

2. When a famine arose in Canaan (as a whole) residents decided to migrate to Egypt. Abraham did so earlier on and Isaac wanted to follow suit in his time.

3. God stopped him while he was in Gerar (still south of Canaan) and God told him to remain in the land.

4. The land in question has to still be the same (whole land I.e Canaan or even still Gerar) and in any case the famine encompassed the whole region in Canaan.

5. The land in vs 1 of chapter 26 had to still be the land in vs 3 and had to still be in vs 12 as the writer made reference to 'that land' and in any case still it suggests that the famine still lingered.

6. The many years past as suggested by vs 8 was there to show that Isaacs lie that Rebecca was his sister didn't go unremembered by the King and his cronies. Years ago Isaac claimed the woman to be his sister but presently they saw him frolicking with her. That's why Abimelech asked him that question 'are you sure she's your sister?'. The many years doesn't mean the famine had stopped.

Summarily, Isaac wanted to head to Egypt to seek better pastures so as he drifted from the south of Canaan (Gerar) as though on his way to Egypt( the regions are close), God stopped him on his track and told him to remain in the land as he will be blessed there. Isaac obeyed and lived blessed despite the famine. Years later (and even in spite of the famine) he worked hard (by sowing) in the same barren land YET he reaped a large harvest in the same year that caused the Philistines to envy him (their envy also alludes to the fact that they too sowed but didn't reap as he did).

My take.

Actually, you're wrong. Let's start from the Son's of Noah in Genesis chapter 10.

Noah had 3 sons namely; Shem, Ham and Japhet. Ham had 4 sons namely; Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan

The Sons of Mizraim are Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Cashluhim (out of whom came Philistim or Philistine) and Caphtorim.

The sons of Canaan are Sidon, Heth, Jebusites, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite and Hamathithe

We can see that Mizraim and Canaan are clearly differentiated and the Philistines (Philistim) are clearly not listed among the descendants of Canaan which God promised Abraham will lose their lands to his descendants. In fact out of the great-grand children of Ham, only Philistim (Philistines) was mentioned and i believe it was because of the great antagonism they were going to cause the Israelites down the pages of history.

Gen 10:19
And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, [size=14pt]as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha[/color]

The bible said the Canaanites border was from Sidon ''as thou comest to Gerar'' It didn't say the border was from Sidon unto and including Gerar.

God differentiated between Canaanites and the Philistines when he enumerated the descendants of Ham and he also demarcated the lands in the scripture above.

Gerar was to the south of Canaan, it doesn't mean Gerar is a part of Canaan. Just like Cotonou is west of Nigeria doesn't mean Cotonou is a part of Nigeria.

Isaac reaped far above his neighbours who even owned the land is the message we got there.

Gombs:
Well, you're right

I just saw this. Gombs, let's try and keep it clean pls. It's not difficult to start rolling but i've respected your ability to own up to some errors pointed out to you on this thread and i wish to maintain that. Pls pls, let's maintain it that way

Image123:
Just to help you, he's only more sly. Like a well with the dirt settled under. #iknowhim.

What would that make you? an open septic tank i'm sure. #everybodyknowshimwellwell

If you wish to engage me, be mature enough to stick to the book. That's what i'm here for and by God's grace, i've stuck to that mandate.

Gombs:
You did not see Vooks' blunder right? I understand

Examine the verse yourself. Thanks

i was still typing and pushed submit icon before time. See the full write up incase you missed it up there

Actually Gombs, a lot of conclusions we've drawn from scripture that scripture didn't actually say. This unfortunately is one of them. let's examine Isaac's story in Genesis Chapter 26 again

Gen 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar

we can see here that there was famine in the land where Isaac currently dwelt and it was where Abraham had suffered famine previously (Gen 12:10) and most likely, this place was the land of Canaan (Gen 12:5-6). He left there and journeyed to Gerar; the land of the philistines. He most likely wasn't content to stay there and like his father before him, he wanted to go into Egypt. This is where God appeared to him warning against Egypt

Gen 26:2-3
And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down to Egypt; dwell in the land which i shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and i will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

Note the bible didn't say he wanted to go into Egypt but we see that God already knew his thoughts. He had already left his place of abode and had sojourned to a new territory (Gerar) with the intent to end up in Egypt but God asked him to stay in this new territory and he'll still bless him there and he obeyed.

Gen 26:6
And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

If you say he reaped more than what the philistine farmers got, you'll be right (thats what the bible said) but there's nothing in the bible to say Gerar also shared the same fate (famine) as Canaan at this point in history.

Gombs:
Na wa o! Candour, you see the kind people I debate scriptures with? Oya, go to Genesis 26, from verse 1, especially veree 12. His name was isaac!

Shame on you! You claim to know, but you keep making simpleton outta yourself. Simple Bible studying o!

I'm done with you, neonates and sissies are not worth the time.

Cheers

Actually Gombs, a lot of conclusions we've drawn from scripture that scripture didn't actually say. This unfortunately is one of them. let's examine Isaac's story in Genesis Chapter 26 again

Gen 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar

we can see here that there was famine in the land where Isaac currently dwelt and it was where Abraham had suffered famine previously (Gen 12:10) and most likely, this place was the land of Canaan (Gen 12:5-6). He left there and journeyed to Gerar; the land of the philistines. He most likely wasn't content to stay there and like his father before him, he wanted to go into Egypt. This is where God appeared to him warning against Egypt

Gen 26:2-3
And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down to Egypt; dwell in the land which i shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and i will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

Note the bible didn't say he wanted to go into Egypt but we see that God already knew his thoughts. He had already left his place of abode and had sojourned to a new territory (Gerar) with the intent to end up in Egypt but God asked him to stay in this new territory and he'll still bless him there and he obeyed.

Gen 26:6
And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

If you say he reaped more than what the philistine farmers got, you'll be right (thats what the bible said) but there's nothing in the bible to say Gerar also shared the same fate (famine) as Canaan at this point in history.

Thoughts on Chapter 8


[size=20pt]1. Believers are not able to give anything to God that did not originate with God.[/size]

This point doesn't need much comments as Hagin made some valid comments on this point himself.

He said ''[size=14pt]This makes it clear that we are not to demand that God give us what we want[/size]. God in His graciousness has already provided everything for us.'' on page 173

He also said ''Having given God something does not entitle one to arrogantly demand that God do something in return. Rather, giving is to be done worshipfully, recognizing that whatever we give to God was originally created by Him and then given to us. Therefore, the proper attitude for giving is one of worship and gratitude.''

Our given should NOT be done to coerce, manipulate or force God into doing our bidding. God isn't a genie. He owns everything anyway and doesn't need our hands to give him.


[size=20pt]2. Some believers operate in a special grace of giving.[/size] Gombs put the following comment right after the point ''Gbam (We aint just showing off)''. I want to assume he was only trying to make it interesting.

True some folks will be more selfless than others (we even see non Christians blow the mind with their generosity to some worthy humanitarian course e.g the AIDS and Ebola epidemics) but of course, motive is important. Like the first point Hagin talked about, some have heard some fantastic 'testimony' of how one man sowed an only car and reaped a car manufacturing company or sowed all his money and reaped a bank (hypothetical cases) and they decide to follow suit. God doesn't work that way. God doesn't work by a formula (Hagin also talked about this on pg 117). If you're led to, go ahead and do but don't do it because you heard someone else did and reaped something fabulous. Lets always be guided by the scripture below

2 Cor 9:7
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Be very sure its your purpose and you were not manipulated or sweet talked into doing it, then give out of Love and out of Love alone.

hmmm......politricks

vooks:
Nobody could provide evidence for this and the ever moronic mbaemeka claimed that the actual thread was lost when NL server was hacked meaning all we have is your imagination of the same. If you want to finger somebody, come up with proof or shut up and apologize.

Hello vooks, pls enough with the insults abeg. It has been traded enough. i'm sure from this point on, we can get our points across without throwing such caustic jabs at each other.

let it rest pls