₦airaland Forum

Ms. Pilgrim

Detest is a derivative of abomination.  It doesn't hold up as the word abomination itself.  With respect to democracy, my point of view was that people lurk under the confidence that everyone participate within a certain guilt thus rendering the action justifiable.  In that context of the word abomination and detestable, they don't play along especially in today's english.  God is not a God of confusion.  A contrite heart is all he seeks for.  Lev 18 .22 was one of many scriptures pointed out.  You only pointed one out and expanded on it.  The WORD cannot be changed.  If you don't research the issue about NIV and it's bare roots, don't make reference to anything.  I have sourced out and if you can't take the time to research through before concluding, then keep the opinion to yourself.  The truth is always the truth, you don't have to believe it; it doesn't make it any less of the truth if you don't believe it.  The homosexuality is one of the many issues of the NIV bible.  There are plenty more that I won't discuss on this thread.  I did my homework 3(1/2) years ago when God first convicted me about the NIV.  God doesn't lie and when he says something, your opinion is worthless, then useless.  You can deceive yourself by playing in ignorance but cannot override what God says.  Believe me, the NIV isn't a bible to count on.  Many of the scriptures have been lifted.  For instance, the Lord's prayer that everyone recites.  It is incomplete in the NIV version.  Luke 17 .36, 18 .11, Mark 9 .44&&46 is not in the NIV versus KJV.  They have been ommitted in the NIV.  There are footnotes stating this verses have missing manuscripts.  You are not to add nor remove from the WORD of God. 

There is a spiritual principle, when you seek, you will receive. Start digging for the truth.

detestion and abomination do not react the same.  You can compromise when you detest something.  An abomination in some instances is never heard of, usually very rare and rarely nor ever practiced.  To detest is limited to a single or few.  Abomination encompasses and its made reference to nations.  They are not the same and your own english equates the two.

If you don't believe about Harper Collins, then don't.  Before jumping to your conclusions, read the books or sources given.  Christians don't read NIV and it will be like that.  There were more than 6 scriptures given, why did you pick yours.  There's still plenty more about NIV and misplaced scriptures but I won't get to it.

Did you read Is 14 .12? Jesus was substituted for Lucifer. That should be clear to any reasonable Christian. If you can't see that, then you need deliverance.

Car Dealer


Trousers were mentioned in the bible.  They were called breaches.  Dig through the original transcript and your Strong's concordance.  No where is it written that women wore breaches.  Breaches were worn also when they went to battle.  Men on earth wore breaches and the men of Israel wore breaches.  When wore gowns too but they were  just below their knees with shorts underneath as underwears.  They weren't as relaxed or loose as those of women, they were coloured differently (according to gender preferences) and women had their gowns long and gloried in how they flowed.  Men had theirs girded too.  

The image the catholics have painted Jesus is clearly unscriptural and makes no sense.   An effeminate looking man with long hippie hair.  Men don't wear long hair and the bible makes the issue clear to the extent that if you aren't even godly, God had written it on your heart that men relate to society with short hair.  

Smoking is completely idolatory.  When you smoke, you conjure spirits.  It doesn't matter how Hollywood paints it.  Tattoos and writings too were clearly stated in Leviticus 19:28.  We aren't suppose to even take a pen and write on your skin how much more tattoos.  The world is slowly returning to the dark age.

Pilgrim, I hope you read the posts you displayed? Theology DOES NOT go with God. Theology is man's understanding. You are far from the truth. Anointing and theology cannot marry themselves. You have one or the other not both. You may not know what I am talking about because you have not born-again. One is light and the other is darkness.

You are far from being the Christ-like person that God wills and I am not concluding from assumptions but from your inputs, testimony and your reasoning.

@ Pilgrim

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
There is no way for man around this scripture. If they decide to lurk under the cover of ignorance, the punishment is even worse.

Be careful how you talk and make references.  You argue blindly and I bet with you that your conscience tells you that you are in the wrong.  The truth is what you'd be judged by (Rom 2).  You know the truth, yet decide to deceive yourself.  God's ways don't go by democracy.  He'll put nations to hell that forget him (Psalms 9 .17).  Where is it right for a woman to wear trousers?  Where is it right for a man to be long-haired and floss on jewels?  You are twisted in your views and you interprete the bible to your own flavour instead of what it's for.

It is wrong to change the path of ancient ways (Prov 22 .28).  Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.  Century's and ages have come and gone, women have differed in dressing.  It is also foolish to think you are wiser than those that have lived before you.  There is no such thing as UNISEX or cross-dressing.  It is an abomination and it will remain like that.  Being smart and wise are two different angles and manisfestations.  A wise person learns.  A foolish person does the opposite and lets no one hear. 

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The bible has been around before you were born and it will remain after you are dead and there is nothing you can do about it.

@ Ricadelide

The NIV bible is also known as the homosexual version.

Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins and Zondervan published the NIV version. King James is credited to the King James version. Puritans wrote it under his authority. We don’t make references to the puritans but King James. It is the same thing with AT&T with the pornography business. You never hear so about AT&T but they aren’t innocent in that line of field. Light has nothing to do with darkness and darkness cannot produce light and it’s so for the reverse.

Malenkott, Virginia Ramey was and is still a member of the NIV translating committee. She is also the author of Omnigender : A trans-religious approach && Is the Homosexual my Neighour? (A bunch of philosophies to reduce homosexuality to gang rape. Mallenkott claimed and principled that Jesus was a woman. She is also the founder of sensuous spirituality and is hell bent on eradicating true Christianity and it’s pillars (the new birth, holiness etc). Her book Out of Fundamentalism details this.


The chairman Woudstra, Martin H (PhD) of the NIV committee at the time it was written too was a proclaimed homosexual.

The whole case blew out of proportion when Carl Graham was sued for slander against the NIV by the international bible society and the NIV board. Woudstra commented that the Old Testament in particular made no reference to homosexuality.

A homosexual is clearly described in the bible as a sodomite. Somebody that is into intimacy with like gender. The original word has been reduced to a male prostitute. A male prostitute to the English understanding is a gigolo or man-LovePeddler. The street or hip word is a jigga or player. A male prostitute is one that flirts and beds with women for a price (money or material). We refer to them in the south as ballers and they are categorised by how large they live and the number of women within a certain period.

Lev 18 . 22(KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

NIV
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Detestable and abomination are two different words with two isolated reactions. One is loathsome and the other is tolerable, though not appreciated.

Deut 23 .17 & 18 - KJV
There shall be no LovePeddler of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a LovePeddler, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God
NIV
No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [c] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both

1 Kings 14 . 24
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel
NIV
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites

1Kings 15 .12 (KJV)
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made
NIV
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22 . 46(KJV)
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land
NIV
He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa

2 Kings 23 .7 (KJV)
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
NIV
He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

In one of Ramey’s book, she refers to Luke 10 .12’s sodomy to inhospitality.
There’s another version of the NIV that is worse. It is the NIVI is banned in the United States. It has been reformulated to the TNIV which buries gender differences.

My wrong, I meant Isa 14 .12 instead of Isa. 16

Pilgrim,


Encyclopedia's are at libraries, research and let that be your starting reference. Spend time before you meet your conclusion. That point was made by ricadelide and he made a point and I addressed it. I am not assuming here. If you haven't done your homework, don't conclude that I am assuming.

The president is not the first man ruling the U.S. There are elites behind, bankers and other powers. He is simply the front man. The pope in the catholic church is not the head or the highest authority, there is still another pope. He is the one in black. The one in white is the front man. The bible addresses uppermost authorities with another name. All you've written about NIV is what they want you to believe (and that is even if you are accurate about what you've written).

ricadelide, I'll get back to you on the issues of homosexuality. Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it. Organisations belong to people. The KJV was written by puritans with soldiers with swords to zap anyone who perverted the WORD and translation. Also, they weren't to add the purgatory trash to the translation. King James ensured it and it being perfect. Also, when they had to use translate God or any form of his deity, they had their hands washed before scripting that very word. NIV is a practical joke. The Living Bible is another issue of it's own. They are made to usher in the new level of consciousness new-agers are trying to initiate the world into.

Pilgrim, I mentioned nothing about Eve and trousers. If you are a true child of God, you would fast as you seek the Lord to know what his opinion is. This is being broken Christian. Unfortunately, sermons and foundational messages are not preached in churches anymore. Instead, prosperity messages and dancing is what the compromise is. Don't be carnal, it is a sin and God detests it. There is a lot more to the pant thing that meets one's understanding. Pants do nothing but the repercussion of the disobedience is what the matter is. I hope you understand what the brush paints.

Harper Collins is the author of New International Version. Harper Collins is also the author of the satanic bible and the joy of gay sex. The NIV is another bible of it's own and makes abominable references to the deity of Christ and encourages homosexuality. I don't understand how people decide to marinate themselves in such. In Isa 14.12, the NIV declares Lucifer as Jesus. This is flat wrong and cannot be made right.

Other translations are not exempted. A version says David did not kill Goliath. The TNIV is even worse. Funny enough, all bibles are copyrighted except the KJV.

@ Boondoggle

The types of prayer I meant were authoritative prayers that requires breaking the atmosphere, prayers against territorial and celestial forces, gates and other higher powers. These are jobs for men. It doesn’t mean women cannot be part of the team but their covering is the men in the band (praying without her hair covered is nothing but a disaster in this scenario). This is a level of prayer that requires intensive fasting and sometimes for results preceding the hostile takeover, they would have fasted for 90 to 120 days.
1 Cor. 11, tells the woman who prays, she must have her head covered
Women are not to bypass authority (Cor 14). To possess anything the devil rightfully owns, you will have to play by the rules and the devil knows this. Women are the glory of men and man is the glory of God (that’s why we wear short hair). Women are under authority throughout their lives. A father is the authority over her daughter till she is married. In marriage, it’s to her husband. A man that marries a woman without her father’s consent (or next of kin) has stolen that woman. A bride price also has to be paid.

They are also known as weaker vessels.

Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the men, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not in the transgression, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak. But they are commanded to be under obedience as saith the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Cor. 14 .34.

Acts 16 .4, Paul went out of the city to the river bank where prayer was wont to be made, and spoke to the women, who were assembled there, and Lydia's heart was opened to receive the truth. The situation clearly shows that women were there assembled separately from men for mutual prayer—God sent Paul to teach them. These show that women may assemble with men for mutual prayer and edification.

Women must teach privately or be condemned. They must also teach their children and they must teach their husbands. They must do this not in an assuming, authoritative way but in a modest respectful manner—just as a child may and must teach its parents. It is not only right for a woman to teach her own family, but others also. Priscilla united with Aquilla in teaching Apollos, an powerful preacher. They did not get up before promiscuous assembles, but in the company of men and women.

I'm not saying women are useless in prayer or cannot have prayers answered. If they try to accomplish a man's job using the principal of prayers, the devil will stand by the WORD.

@ Seun001

I did not mean to be disrespectful. It was sincere. Some people take and leave the scriptures to better suit their lifestyles. The WORD shouldn't be edited but obeyed completely. As for the pastors, honour them and be careful also. You are not commanded in the bible to adore or idolise them.

All toothpastes with flouride are the same. Different brands with similar ingredients.

@Seun 001

Deuteronomy 22:5, God states, “The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord your God.” It isn't just to differentiate between genders but a lot more beyond the surface.

Your opinion isn't the final authority neither is any principle or culture.  We will all meet our maker someday.  It won't matter what you say or believe because He is above all and he established the ends of the earth and rules in the affairs of men.  Those that won't bow to him on earth will bow when they meet him because every knee must bow.  I made my mind a few year back to do what the bible says, irregardless.  People will come out with their own version thinking the actions of the multitude will cause God to change his mind - if it works with the harlot called democracy, it won't work for God.  Sure enough, there are bibles out there now that documents heresies and blasphemies.  The NIV and the living bible is one of them.  God isn't mocked.

seun001:
now i think u are taking this too far,so u are trying to input what not necessarily there.u are insinuating that women wearing trousers is directly related to their suffering.i beg to disagree.don't have enough time to reply mayb later.

The clothes isn't the cause but the whole principle is.  When you add x and y together, you get x+y.  Substract x and it leaves you with y.  The earth is laced with principles.  What I related goes hand in hand with the scripture that denotes "When you break the edge, the serpent will bite."  God calls wearing what pertains to the opposite gender an abomination.  Do you think you'll go scott-free when God said something and decide the other?!  Certainly not!  This is one out of many.  Research the ministry of deliverance and intercession.  I will not explain it but get with a Christian.

I am from Redeem and there is no Redeem as the one situated at Lagos.  There areclassified into two - classical and model parishes.  Man is controlled and influenced either by the forces of the air or being in line with the WORD of God.

On second note, I think he has a point there ( a whole lot ) but the driving thing is not a ground. Many of us don't recognise that the white-man's tradition isn't ours. They are trying to preserve their custom or culture. Many other countries aren't. For instance, in the United States, anything other than a caucasian is considered a minority. You more or less worth nothing. It's been mor than 250 years blacks and white lived together yet they don't do things the same and aren't entitled to the same benefits. They don't consider us as them and will not. African's should discover tey roots and flaunt it. One of the worst things you can do is to let western culture define who you are and even give you a name. I watched the clip and I don't think he lied anywhere. The driving issue is due to the fact that a cultural practice would be violated.

I strongly believe that men and women are different and have different roles but this is just unacceptable. There are other aspects of life to (at least) waste your time on.

You cannot cure eczema on the extreme alone. You'll have to resort to treatment both within and without. Curing from without will cause it to show up at a later time and and resistant to the same level of treatment.

Avoid toothpastes with flourides (if you can).

@ seun001

It's all good. What I stated is only the surface. All women that wear trousers too have the spirit of incubus in them and around them. It's also the reason why they have difficulty giving birth and dying when trying to conceive. Women in the United States are dying from childbirth. Science itself will rear its ugly head and try to offer a solution. Compare the countenance of whom that wears trousers to the person that doesn't. The difference is clear.


Peace!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=71063.msg1438379#msg1438379 date=1188283843]I think you've clearly mixed up issues here. The proclamation that 'thy desire shall be to thy husband' does not translate into "Women will always desire a man's status"! That simply takes the whole matter away from the WORD while quoting from it.

What really is the status of a man? Do men even know what their "status" is? That verse was not discussing a woman's desire to a man's status. It simply says her desire shall be to her husband - which simply points to fellowship.

Besides, the wearing of trousers or not is not the issue at all. We've come a long way to establishing the fact that "trousers" were never mentioned in Scripture - and only men have tried to read it into the Bible. The basic principle is simply that men should not dress like women, and women should not dress like men! It has nothing to do with anyone wearing trousers.[/quote]Ms. Pilgrim


nb: Society is the building block of families. A husband to a family is a man to the society. The same applies to a wife in a particular family. There is no reference to fellowship anywhere.

       In the bible days, they were called breeches.   If you are walk and live by the bible, you'll understand that some words need to be looked up as you meditate.  Besides the King James Version, you should always reflect to the greek and the Hebrew references to pin-point the initial meaning to certain scriptural references.  Your level of the WORD is plain.  The WORD is new every morning and dynamic in revelation.  Depending on your level of prayer (prayer life) and revelation, WORD is coded and interpreted differently.   When you are into the supernatural, things become different and many things that meant the world to you become useless and needless.   It's what the white man calls vain or vanity.  The verse in Genesis is not limited to fellowship (as a matter of fact, I don't see where it denotes fellowship because it's a curse being placed at that point and there is no harmony in a curse).  You simply have no understanding of that scripture.  It is deep - meditate on it and you'll find out that God doesn't play.  Eve's action was so hearty; to defy what God had said and bound her within the constaints of man in mankind.  To add what I stated in the last post, 7 women would take hold of a man and make clear how independent they'll be but would want the man's last name so that they wouldn't bear reproach.  "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."  This has come to pass.  Today's woman seeks to be the career type neglecting the family's priority and the role Paul clearly states.  The pants too is their own apparel that they have designed after their own hearts.  I'm not a people's person nor do I socialise or mix with people but I keep hearing women say "Men are hard to find these days."  Besides the fact that I easily get irritated, the truth of the fact in life is that issues, troubles or afflictions don't arise from the dust.  They all have roots and the open gates enforce the roots to ensure that they remain perpetual.  It may sound wierd but this is true.  There are some problems in life that the prayer of a woman cannot resolve.  Talk to your pastor or intercessor.  The authority of a woman isn' strong enough to negotiate the principles to get the desired result.  You will need a man and the issue can be resolved sometimes with a simple prayer or combined prayer.  It is a level of prayer.

As for the whole confusion, I blame Christians, not the ungodly or the perversed.  The fear of the Lord is what makes nations sit up.  It is obvious that when the elements of the earth was being reprogrammed, Christians had no spirit of judgement to cancel the understanding and render the counsel void.  However, they complained and probably enjoyed it.  50 years later, it's has a sub section on nairaland and also a political issue of conservatism and liberalism.  The anointing of Jehu needs to be reinstated to rid the earth of the current generational wickedness.


^{What really is the status of a man? Do men even know what their "status" is? That verse was not discussing a woman's desire to a man's status. It simply says her desire shall be to her husband - which simply points to fellowship.}

I'll explain this to you.  Marinate it with common sense.  When your husband (supposedly) says something and you say the other - or - you fight him or nag at him, what is that suppose to mean?  It's simply the Eve in you.  God laid a rule, Eve did hers because she taught she was smarter.  The same too with your husband you might think you are smarter so, you nag, fight and sometimes make a full of yourself.


I'm not here to stir discord or hatred neither am I begging to be friends with me.  Let nobody see this as a hate speech.  I usually don't talk about this but to close personal friends and my Christian brothers and sisters that care to give an ear.

One thing is definite. Other churches will follow what Redeem has sanctioned. Women wearing trousers is wrong and at the same time ungodly. It's getting to the point were nobody knows the truth. Redeem is one of the greatest churches ever. You cannot compare it to the Hollywood churches of Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen (I pity people). We'll always have holiness and "the rest." Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. This has been the principle and holding factor that has governed life shortly after woman was created. Women will always desire a man's status but God has proclaimed that man will rule over woman. Women through the ages have flunctuated in their lust for the "ideal" figure all because men never come to a conclusion. All the principles of feminism is against this very scripture but Psalms makes it clear that the Lord sits on his holy throne laughing at those that establish counsels against the Lord and his anointed one. All these trouser stuff is approximately 50 years and the goal of those who started this is to make the earth matriarchal. American history students will date this issue back to the early '70's around the time when abortion was legalised and the rise of breast cancer began to sour. The WORD of God is forever settled and nothing will change the divine order that has been set.


Sheila Cronam said, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

November of 1971 when they laid out their agenda and this is what it says, "The end of the institution of marriage is necessary for the liberation of women; therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not live individually with men. All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!" Mark that, "We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!"

This is known as the "Declaration of Feminism." Ever since, we've had words like sexism, chauvists and etc. Bringing this gnostic into the church will not go well with a Christ-like life. Women have been their own men and have been their own women. I read a few days ago that the days of men are numbered as women wouldn't need men to replenish the earth.

V'man, you are welcome and the pleasure is all yours.

Viperman,


Thanks, I have one and it's SE and stone-black in colour. Suspension's been customised, brakes and some service job on the ESP. I will revamp it's exhaust system with twin-log exhausts with a 3" down pipe. It's a fun car to drive (even without modifications) and more comfortable than a Mercedes. I wish you grace on your sale.

Thanks you Viperman

Dealers price (Demontrond Volvo) has a T5 for the price of $7900. It's a blue mark Volvo (like the pic shown) with 67,000 miles on it but isn't an SE. GLT's would cost a few hundreds cheaper. I have no word on the non-turbo model.

@Brogsbaby
I appreciate it.  I'm not interested in buying another car for now.  Thanks though!

All Camry's are boring. I think all Toyota's are. Boring to drive, souless and you can't project them. The 4 cylinders are nothing but torture.

Why do people freak over Camry's? Those things are boring.

Viperman,


Can you post the image of the front?  I can't see the grill.  Also, the rear and a picture of the engine bay.  There are 4 models to this vehicle and I supose that is A-Spec.   The price will differ.  From what I can see I assume it's a light-pressured GLT.  This isn't a T5, T5's were equipped with 17 inch wheels and what you have is a 15 to 16 inch wheel. 

I bought mine in '05 including taxes and registration, dealer fee for approx. $13,000 but fully loaded and no engine throttle management.  It was driven for only two years when I got it.  Mos' defin., it has depreciated.  Post as much pictures as you can.  Check to see if the tenshioner is hydraulic or mechanical (it's a huge difference). I can see some IPD modification (except it isn't A-spec). The previous owner must have been a fan.   I'll give you the US market range and you'll conclude yourself.

Toyota is better, Honda in the United States is more expensive. In terms of durability and endurance, bank on Toyota. Honda parts are thinner and lighter. Overall, the car ends up being lighter. I am not into japanese cars, but that model of Honda posted, has an issue with it's automatic transmission at early mileage. Some are known to roll at the park selector when idle on a tilted or gradient terrain. In summary, every japanese car is an immitation of Toyota. That's why they don't last as long.

@ Kellorah

What the men wore in those days were just above their knees or slighly below their knees with shorts underneath it. Women wore flowing gowns. From my understanding of the bible, women are to be covered all the way down with more than three-forth of their legs covered.