₦airaland Forum

Hasn't the thread lost it's original focus and arn't you people twisting religious logic out of shape a bit? No mainstream religious text tells you to give up luxury. You are simply not to pursue them at the expense of following God. The logic behind these promises is that even if you miss them in this world you will get them in the next.

Hey, pal. I see you even aspire to know my heart. But since your stated finding is so deeply flawed in that regard, mightn't we also conclude that this other assertion you think you are in a position to make is off the mark?

Image123: JW has no light of any import to throw you, sorry.

I take it you know everything, having examined every dimension and held a few discussions with God, to be in a position to make this assertion.

@op
Well, I did pose this to an enlightened Witness and he tried to resolve it here.

A bit of good news. Good we didn't have another Gbagbo or Mugabe.

You don't like doing something but you find you keep doing it. So you make a resolution not to do it again. It's called a HABIT and it has nothing to do with God - ordinarily. The resolution is a promise to yourself as you rightly put it in the opening part of your post, not to God as you wrongly put it in the closing part. What you need to do is resolve again to shun alcohol whenever it is offered. If you resolve not to do anything and you go back to it just out of "shame" you may be confirming yourself as a moral weakling.

But I would assume that the reason you bring "conscience", God, and all that into it is due to religious indoctrination. If you are Muslim, drinking is certainly a "sin". But if you are Christian, it's another matter since the Bible clearly endorses alcohol use while warning of the possible dangers. But some churches insist it's a sin to touch it and if yours is one of them, what can anyone say to you?

@op
Sad.

Callotti:
He should not lament too much abeg.
How innocent are the so-called Nigerians with complacency?
He made a choice to do his business in Nigeria.
Those of us in the healthcare that shun ANYTHING Nigerian professionally are fools abi?
Nigerians deserve what they have.
If you can't beat them, please feel free to join them and DON'T complain.
Period!

Your opinion is bad. Those of you who "shun ANYTHING Nigerian" are certainly not "fools" and have a right to make that choice. But others have a right to stay to try to help "the so-called Nigerians". No matter how bad any system is, you will find high-minded people like this who do their best against all odds. The man did the right thing by refusing to give the bribe and escalating the matter. Stay away from Nigeria all you like, that is your prerogative, but please allow the man to "lament".

Miss EZ: To be honest, pounded yam is a lot better than poundo yam. Poundo yam is much easier to make, but na pounded yam carry first. And this is coming from someone who used to pound yam every Sunday afternoon, and atleast twice during the week.

Are you single?

dolly a: eating snake meat is sooooooooooooo disgusting . ughrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Don't you think you are a bit hasty in your conclusion?

Ok, why do you say it's disgusting? Because it crawls on its belly? Well, crocodiles do. Snails crawls - and eat excrement! Even chickens are often seen crawling when they are not walking or running.

It is because it bites and can kill? Fishes do bite. And lots of animals can kill. Even ostriches have been known to kill. Is it dirty? Well, snakes don't even come close to catfish. What, then, makes the snake disgusting outside of anyone's mind? Nothing.

Snake meat tastes nice, is nutritious, and is healthy. It is low in fat and calories, compared to beef and other types of meat. But, of course, if you are not comfortable with it, you should not eat it. After all, all the snake eaters I know are selective of the type they eat. The most commonly consumed are pythons and adders. Cobras also make the pot in many Nigerian places. I am yet to hear of anyone eating green mambas.

In Nigeria, I'd heartily recommend Chi soya milk made by Chivita or any other soya drink. You have to search to find it Chi, as not all shops stock it since our people don't favour sugarless stuff.

Double post.

Salad is not complicated. Just use what you can get where you live.

1. Cabbage
2. Carrots
3. Green peas
4. Lettuce
5. Other stuff - from spinach to raisins, from brocolli to sunflower seeds. I've even heard of onions in salad!

You can purchase these and cut them up yourself, except for (3) which you don't have to cut. In the alternative you can purchase the canned stuff with all most of the above already cut up and mixed together.

Next stage is to add cream to hold the vegetables together and make them good to eat. The commonest thing to use is salad cream/mayonnaise. If you are a vegetarian or a health-conscious eater, you may have to find an alternative, as salad cream/mayonnaise contains egg yolk and vinegar, among other "bad" stuff. The way I see it, the best thing invented for vegetarians and health-conscious eaters yet is vegennaise - believe me, that stuff is better than sex! If you are in Nigeria, you will find it very hard to lay your hands on vegennaise. And if you do, it's very expensive. But it may be well worth it.

If you won't do salad cream/mayonaise and can't find vegennaise, you may have to try milk, cheese or anything else. I won't recommend those Italian or Lebanese coloured water they label "salad dressing" and pack in shops all over Victoria Island.

How to prepare.

You simply add some cream (start with small quantities) to the vegetables (which you already cut to small pieces) and mix thoroughly.

Enjoy!

Edit: The above is just a type of salad, perhaps the most common. There are other types - "fruit salad", "potato salad", "chicken salad", etc. I have even sighted something called "African salad".

"Executive summaries"? That is a valid point, particularly for monies. Usually, when writing in a certain field, you try to understand the conventions and follow them. The repetition is quite unnecessary in everyday writing - much like the "only" written after the amount is conventional in a cheque but quite unnecessary in your everyday prose.

maclatunji:

It depends on what you are trying to say.

1. All equipment have a (6)six-month manufacturer's warranty.

2. All our equipment have a (6)six-month warranty.

These two expressions are better in my opinion (grammatically). Remember, warranties have legal connotations as well, you might want to consider that in your analysis.

Not too bad, but two quick points.

1) Writing "six (6)..." or "6 (six)..." is a superfluity most common in Nigerian writing. In English language, it is deemed sufficient to spell out zero to nine, and write 10 and above in figures only. The repetition is unnecessary (unless, of course, you are working for a lawyer who is paying you top naira to murder the English language).

2) If you remove the hyphen and write "six month..." in your two sentences above, they would be just as fine (grammatically).

I would say the sentence in op is fine once you treat it of the six-6 malady.

On the question of whether equipment takes an "s", the word is generally an uncountable noun. While "equipments" is an accepted Scrabble word and it is possible to rationalise its use under certain circumstances, it is usual to treat it as uncountable and write it without the "s" and unless you are a genius, you should stick to that.

Nigeria's policy makers never disappoint. Just when you thought you heard the worst, they drop another one. The Albino Foundation should reject this. Provide eye glasses for them or consider special printing. Deal with the sight problem, not award extra hours. Nonsense and ingredient!

newman4u:
Does Patriotism have anything to do with spiritual development? What I have observed in the course of my travels is that Patriotism is the very thing that makes the western countries better economically than other countries. Patriotism makes them sacrifice for their country. I have noticed that the poorer the people of a country are, the less patriotic its citizens are. People in poor countries are often more interested in their pockets than the general welfare and growth of the country. Is this poverty as a result of lack of patriotism or is the lack of patriotism the result of the poverty? Please throw light on this question. I have more questions to ask but lets start with these.

I think patriotism is ok, but not tremendously good. I mean, it is not something worth aspiring to. That is why I will recommend it to Nigerian leaders even though I despise it. On whether it has anything to do with spiritual development, I will say it's probably for the averagely spiritually developed. Like religion, it can do some good, but it can also wrought a lot of evil. That is why I will not recommend that it is taught willy-nilly children.

Nigerian leaders can do with some patriotism because, generally speaking, theirs is a reprobate tribe where only Marmon is god, a tribe where only personal accumulation of lucre matters. A man who converts N27 billion of public money to the use of he and his wives and children while electricity and public hospitals suffer can certainly do with a dose of patriotism. Why, if he loves his country just a tiny bit he would steal a tiny bit less and the country could "move forward".

That does not make patriotism "all that". Save for religion, there is nothing like the love of country to drive men to  commit the worst atrocities - mass murder, plunder, suicide bombing are carried out while the person carrying them out feels completely at ease with himself since he is doing it all for "the motherland". "For Fuhrer and for country", they put it in Germany." Far superior to the love of country, then, is the love of humanity - call it humanism, or human rights relativism or what you like. This should help you make higher distinctions - like one between a war waged by your country to acquire territory and enhance the national pride and one waged by a Hitler against your country to slaughter innocent people and subjugate them. In the former, you will likely refuse to fight even at the risk of being jailed or executed but in the latter, no one needs conscript you to fight to defend, not boundaries, but people.

newman4u: Having lived in Europe almost all my life, and having dealt personally with a lot of the different peoples of Europe, I found your explanations about world war II very insightful. Its a pity that Germans today are labelled with the atrocities of the Nazi.

In a way, I think Germany deserves the "labelling". As for "Germans today", Being "labelled with the atrocities of the Nazi" is not an ongoing problem. Last important person I know who made reference to the Holocaust while talking to a German was Berlusconi. I would not bother too much about Berlusconi. The German MEP didn't, replying calmly that he had too much respect for the victims of Fascism to make similar comments. There, everyone  has "issues".

newman4u: Nobody remembers that many Germans opposed the Nazi idealogy.

People remember Pastor Martin Niemoller and the other clergymen, intellectuals and others who campaigned against Nazism at the risk of their lives. The BBC has made a documentary about Wolfgang Kuserrow and the other 890 Jehovah's Witnesses who were killed for refusing to support Nazism. The world does remember.

newman4u: No body remembers how many attempts  Germans made to assasinate Hitler.

There weren't "many attempts", but I doubt anyone has forgotten the Carnaris affair. Certainly nobody can forget Field Marshall Rommel, one of the finest officers in modern military history, who was forced to commit suicide after being implicated in a plot to assassinate Hitler.

newman4u: People talk about Holocaust but during that era, almost every white society, from America to Britian was very antisemitic. Nobody bothered Hitler when he singled out the Jews, infact they all held the same ideology. Only when Hitler started invading white nations did the world rally against him.

Yeah, true.

newman4u: The Problem with History is that who ever looses a war will also receive a label of all the evils of that era. If the Nazi had won, the world would today be labelling them as angels.

Here is what would have happened if Germany won. Every Jew, ho.mose.xual, every mentally ill person, autistic people and other "impurities" in Europe would have been sent to the gas chambers. Whole communities of religious or spiritual people would have been sent to concentration camps or wiped out. And then Africa would be turned into a plantation with black people forced to work on it. There would have been resistance everywhere and it would all go on until Hitler was assassinated. Nobody would have called the Nazis angels.

newman4u: Another problem with History is that an entire people often receive the blame for the wrongs of their leaders. The same antisemitism that the Nazi paraded was also found in Britain and America. Even today in America those sentiments still strongly exist among the whites. If by any chance a member of such groups like the KKK becomes the president of America and comits atrocities. The entire American people will be tagged evil because of this, especially if such a leader looses in a battle or get conquered by another nation.

There's this book I was reading once. I can't recall if it was fiction or a true account. But there was this young German officer returning home from a British POW camp. On surveying the carnage around him, he shook his head and told himself, "You know, you're to blame for this." To him, the German elite were to blame for allowing someone like Hitler to ascend to power. I think he has a good point. It's okay for you to talk about the whole of Europe being anti-semitic but who else built gas chambers to eliminate the Jews? People should not be blamed for the action of their leaders? Why not? German public opinion was not against Nazism. They loved the street corner troublemaker who came to power promising to restore the country to some imaginary glory and prestige.

Jenwitemi:
fossilized paradigmal mindset

I just absolutely love this!

Rtfl. "What is the world turning into?!"

Ha! You, the inquisitor, need rescue now, ehn?

Haba, Image123! You didn't just call me a Witness naa. You declared a whole thread a Witness party and made war on anyone who differed.

But good to see you've had a revelation. Karo and babaearly and the others who've come under your brush will be happy to see this day.

@Image123
I think there is a Witness party going on here.

Deep Sight:
Frosbel, I sense a stirring in your spirit. You are grappling with doctrines that obviously make little sense. I see that you are continuously creating answers to satisfy yourself. That is okay. What is important is that your spirit is obviously prodding you to ask questions about these things.

Yes. Na so e dey start. Guy reminds me of secondary school grammar class as he shifts from the imperative mood to the inquisitive, from exposing "falsehood" to questioning "truth".

As he progresses in this sunset journey, he will soon find the answers he plucks out of his hat comprehensively dwarfed by his enquiries and starkly untenable, and then a serious "soul searching" will take place before co.ck crow. The denoument is not predictable at this point but it will be earth-shaking, as it will make the epiphany that spurn his abnegation of Zionism "child's play."

Sam Milla:
This Grace of God Church a few meters from my house seems to be holding Church services every evening. They have their mega loud speakers faced to every direction outside their hall as i write this. I am writing this from the inside of my car because i am afraid to get down and go inside/i am seriously considering heading to a quiet bar to wait until about 12pm when they usually stop. Please someone should tell me how to convince this people that noise pollution can cause problems for people. Another concerned neighbour already confronted them and the result was that they labbelled him a ritualist who gets disturbed by their loud prayers and songs. Unfortunately every iiddiioott  in the neighbourhood now see the man as a ritualist because the Church said so.

Lol @ bolded.

Joagbaje, please read that part.

maclatunji:
This topic is misleading, the widow's relatives have no conjugal rights over the woman because she has not married any of them. I understand what OP is talking about, which is the culture of a man's wife being passed on to his older or younger brother after his death. No woman has to put-up with that if she does not want to. The people who do it, get away with it because of any of the following reasons:

1. She agrees to it.

2. She feels threatened and helpless to fight it.

Either way, a formal process of accepting or 'pretending to accept' is involved and she is given to only one of her husband's relatives and not all of them.

Thank you. This is the way I understand it.

Of course, if the woman wants to be married to her husband's brother and her husband's brother wants it there should be nothing wrong with that. It's where compulsion is brought in that there is a problem. Usually these traditions are flexible in many places. But I understand they try to "force" you in some places. Now, that's sad, if true.

Thanks again and best regards, too.

nuclearboy:
Here are a few examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV. Here it is compared with the earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in comparison even with its modern siblings.

Romans 4:1, NIV: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"

NASV (text option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?"

NASV (margin option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?"

First of all, notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which is one of the most important theological terms in the entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis 2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is extremely significant in the Pauline understanding, especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply did not want to include the idea in the English. The NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term while acknowledging they were not certain about what the phrase "according to the flesh" modified.

Hebrews 11:11, NIV (text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

NIV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who made the promise."

NASV (text option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised;"

NASV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had promised;"

The second NASV reading is a literal reading and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV!

The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate:

First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful.

With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior () with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option).


Further examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV are here grouped under seven categories:

1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the [size=13pt]translators had to make interpretive decisions[/size] about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4.

2. Addition of words in translation (pp. 22-28). To be fair, older translations have done this as well, but when the AV adds words to clarify meaning it puts them in italics. The NIV does not -- it therefore gives no warning or notice to the reader as to what it has done. For example, 1 Cor. 7:9 states "it is better to marry than to burn," a statement which is subject to numerous interpretations. The NIV in its stead says, "to burn with passion," an addition to the text that is not indicated by any italics (or other flags) and that simply settles the interpretation for the reader. Acts 5:20 says, "all the words of this life," but the NIV reads "the full message of this new life." The word "new" is nowhere to be found in any Greek ms. It has been added by the NIV translators and clearly adds a "new thought" to this verse -- a thought which is man's and not God's at this place.

3. Omission of words (pp. 28-29). Be careful -- some words are omitted due to a difference in textual choice. That is not what the author is speaking to here. The NIV often omits conjunctions and interjections. The word "lo" or "behold" occurs 62 times in Matthew, but the NIV omits it 37 times. Mark's gospel abounds in the term "immediately" and creates a major theme in Mark's Davidic perspective on Jesus. The NIV omits it in 5 places. In Matthew 10:6, "of the house" is simply left out, and "unto himself" is left out of Ephesians 1:5 -- neither of these omissions have any textual basis.

4. Erosion of technical vocabulary (pp. 29-38). There are parts of the Bible that use highly technical words -- words that have been used in a specifically Christian way by the author. Thus the NIV translates the Greek term *dikaioo* as "justify" except in Romans 2:13 and 3:20, where it reads "declared righteous." This author correctly points out that justification "involves the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us," not simply a mere verbal declaration. Propitiation becomes the vague "sacrifice of atonement" and "atoning sacrifice" in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2. Martin provides several pages of discussions of the "flesh" as mentioned in another post on Romans 4:1.

5. Leveling cultural distinctives (pp. 38-40). "Girding up the loins of your mind" in 1 Peter 1:13 becomes "prepare your minds for action" in the NIV. The NIV does give the "sermonic gist" of the idea, but[b] it eliminates the biblical imagery which calls to mind much of the OT, especially the priestly ministry. The priests were forbidden to approach the altar by steps, lest their unclothedness be exposed. They were given special, anointed loin coverings (breeches) so that they could do so. Ordinary underwear would not cover "unclothedness" any more than Adam's figleaves did. Thus the notion of girding up the loins has a priestly ring to it, which the NIV eliminates[/b]. See Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev. 9:30.

6. Slipping in subjective interpretations (pp. 41-62). Here is a handful of numerous illustrations: In each case, the first translation is word-for-word formal equivalency; the second is the NIV. In each case, the NIV decides to perform the office of pope for us by interpreting the "sense" of the Greek.

John 17:11 in thy name
by the power of your name
Gal. 1:11 according to man
something that man made up
Phil. 2:1 in Christ
from being united with Christ
1 Thes. 4:2 through the Lord Jesus
by the authority of the Lord Jesus

7. Finally, paraphrasing. The problem with paraphrasing again is that it allows too much latitude to the translator to do our thinking and meditating for us. But the primary focus that is illustrated in this category is the manner in which the cadence and beauty of the original text is changed. Here are just a *few* of numerous illustrations. [size=14pt]Remember, there is an entire generation being raise on this pap. . .[/size]



Matt. 12:49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said
NIV pointing to his disciples, he said
(the hand is eliminated)

Matt. 13:33 in three measures of meal
NIV into a large amount of flour
(the number three is eliminated)

Mark 1:2 before your face
NIV ahead of you
(the face is eliminated)

Luke 1:15 from his mother's womb
NIV from birth
(completely changes the meaning; pro-abortionists can take comfort here!)

John 1:20 and he confessed and denied not; and he confessed
NIV and he did not fail to confess, but confessed freely (lessens the emphatic character of the language)

1 Thes. 4:6 the Lord is an avenger
NIV the Lord will punish (the OT Avenger of Blood theology vanishes)

The kinds of errors outlined in this and the previous post reveal more than just the usual mistakes that are made in any translation. They reveal a cavalier attitude toward the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. The NIV is not interested in translating the WORDS of God, but the CONCEPTS of God. Yet such cannot be done apart from the words. I would remind anyone interested in the truth, that Paul based an important aspect of the "seed theology" on the fact that the word occurred in the SINGULAR and NOT the PLURAL form. If even singulars and plurals are important to a correct understanding of God's word, how dare we take such an attitude toward it that we will translate "idea by idea" rather than word by word?

For CLEAR evidence that both NASV and NIV have a chiliastic bias, simply compare Matthew 24:30 in either of those versions with the ACCURATE translation to be found in the AV. It is not a sign that appears in the sky or heaven, but rather a sign is given that the Son of Man is in heaven. Again, while theologians of various eschatological stripe may dispute the *MEANING* of this text, the AV preserves the word order and sense of the Greek text and allows for more than one interpretation. At this point, both the NASV and the NIV remove "ambiguity" from the text by FORCING one interpretation onto the text.

The Bible was not written in 20th century "street English." It was written in Hebrew and Hebraized Greek. Attempts to make the Bible sound like a modern novel do it no service and in the opinion of numerous scholars (James White's unwarranted claim to a "majority of scholars" notwithstanding) are beginning to realize that the NIV went WAY OVERBOARD with a new idea -- an idea that is philologically unsound.

[size=13pt]It should be noted, however, that many of the more Reformed men on the translation committee dropped out of the work over time, no longer desiring to be associated with it. Also, in the years since 1965-78, many more Reformed linguistic scholars are coming to understand the numerous flaws contained in the NIV.[/size]

Further, if James White is to be believed (how could we doubt the scholarship of Mr. White?), the preface to the NIV is simply WRONG when it states "For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions of *Biblia Hebraica*, was used throughout." Yet Mr. White informs us that the NIV *really* used a non-standard ms variant at Psalm 12:7 (ENG) to come up with "you will keep us."

How many examples does one have to give? It is very interesting to find some people actually say that [size=18pt]the NIV does have the right initials which mean - (Non-Inspired Version)[/size]. From the error of changing fornication into "marital unfaithfulness" in Matthew 5:32;19:19 to the taking away of many passages, this version of the Bible is truly a perversion of God's Word.

ONE MAJOR ISSUE THAT WILL CAUSE A LOT OF CONTROVERSY HERE ON NAIRALAND FOLLOWS

# NIV Psalms 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Biblical reasons WHY this is wrong:
1. Sin is breaking God’s Law I John 3:4
2. Sin is not passed on Ezekiel 18:20
3. You are pure until you sin Ezekiel 28:15
4. Man causes himself to be a sinner Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
5. Sin has do be done by someone realizing right and wrong James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
6. Can a baby sin? God says that we are to become as these little children not little sinners Matthew 18:3.
7. Out of this doctrine comes infant baptism.
a. Out of nine conversion examples in the book of Acts not one time was a baby converted (Acts 2:36-41, Acts 8:5-13, Acts 8:26-39, Acts 9:1-20, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 16:13-15, Acts 16:23-34, Acts 18:8, and Acts 19:1-7).
b. Can a baby believe in God? You cannot separate belief from baptism (Mark 16:15-16).


ANOTHER ONE
* NIV Romans 10:10 "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
Biblical reasons this is wrong:
If confession was enough why did the Eunuch not stop at that (Acts 8:37)? [If you are using the NIV you will have to look at another version to read Acts 8:37, the NIV has taken it out. Again, see # 7 a above. NIV John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
*
1. If one is saved by faith alone explain why there are no examples of this post Calvary. (See point 7 a above for how many examples of baptism there are)
2. Jesus said faith and baptism not faith alone Mark 16:15-16.
3. Jesus stated (John 3:5) "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
4. Read James 1:19. If we are saved by faith alone why did Jesus condemn the devil and his angels to hell (Matthew 25:41)?
5. Read James 2:19-26 and explain how God says we are NOT saved by faith alone and why the NIV contradicts itself here with John 3:16?

There are so many other issues including some ridiculous ones - many analysts complain about NIV using language constructs that state Jesus Christ & Satan are the same, since the term Lucifer and/or star of the morning are used interchangeably when referring to them - This also due to attempts to make the NIV more modern-friendly rather than pass on what they started with.

Anyone interested can simply search for more information and make their own deductions!

Thanks for this. You have highlighted things I had not previously considered or been aware of. There is a lot I find agreeable in it, there is also a lot I disagree with – in terms of the deductions made but more particularly the approach employed in making them. I will read it more closely later and hopefully understand this POV better.

nuclearboy:
^^ Never imagined I'd see this day when you too'd  ,  ,

*cough*

If I wrote my own Bible, surah 2:1 would read:

When thou seest nations rising against nation, when thou want to speak to the guy in the next room and thou pick up thy mobile phone, when thou ask a simple question and thou get a referral to Google, knowest thee that the end times are here.

I merely wished to know why you think the NIV is heavily compromised. One finds a lot of things in Google and I’m not smart enough to know what’s in your mind or a certain POV by wading through tons of text. No, I don’t wish to be spoon fed but I appreciate a simple ansa to a simple kweshon and I certainly imagined you could give one, like this:

nuclearboy: [There are] "gender based" translations in the NIV which tend towards a more politically correct equality of the se-xes!

That^^^ does not explain “notoriously compromised” but it shows what you were thinking and what you consider the “POV of…”. And I think you could have cut to this earlier instead of "heating up the polity". But I guess it’s a sign of the end time. Or maybe it was delayed ej.ac.ul.ation.

Now, there's an interesting POV - that in the matter of the accuracy of Bible translations there's uniquely a "POV of the Christian who's not being politically correct". Not having to be politically correct, myself, I don't share the POV that this POV exists.

Sorry for derailing.

nuclearboy:
NIV is a notoriously compromised version of the Bible!

Just saying

Err. . . can you explain a bit, sir? I swear by the NIV.

chamber2:
In fact, someone just informed me that she even made a 2.1 at IMSU but graduated as overall best at the law school. I don't know if this is true but i will contact her personally to verify that.

It happens that most people who made first class at faculty only make 2.1 at the law school and most who make first class at the law school only made 2.1 at faculty - state or federal. There have been very very few people made first class at both places.

InesQor:
Thanks for reading up, MyJoe!

(1) Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think past-life therapies involve a re-experiencing of one's own past lives in a bid to improve on or better live the present one. Usually a therapist or healer or guide of some sort helps the person through the experience, but some may learn to carry it out themselves.

Well, maybe, but not necessarily. Attending a session with a medium or therapist and having recollections of past lives is called a “past life regression”. Of course, you can call it “re-experiencing” although my choice of words would differ. The therapist helps the subject to recollect “past lives” through hypnosis. Now the problem with regressions, it is said, is that the subject’s conscious mind can interfere and false recollections will be had.

That is why most people opt to have the medium do a “past life reading” and transmit the information while in a trance-like state. The subject does not have to attend the session as it would be recorded on audiotape. The subject can choose to “believe” it or get a “confirmation” through another reading or various other means – from dowsing to astrology.

Most past life readings are not actually therapeutic, although many have been reported to be so. Let us take two scenarios. Miss A goes in for a past life reading and is told the reason she has real bad allergies to grapes is because she was violated in a vineyard 88 years before. Mr B goes in and is told he has these violent recurring headaches because as a powerful king he had his enemies’ heads cut off and hung in his compound. Miss A will get a healing, having confronted a matter that her subconscious mind had kept playing up. Mr B will not. In fact, “knowing” will make no difference him. If he is dealing with a medium who’s on the Spiritual Path, he may be told he has three options. (1) Renounce the world and go into meditation in some cave. (2) Put off some of his bad karma to another life. (He will be strongly advised against this option.) (3) Forget about making his headache disappear overnight but do what he can to improve it. Daily thank God for seeing another day and pray for the good of the world. Help people from the goodness of his heart, that is, without ego or the thinking that it will improve his lot in life.

Looking at the third option, you see why knowing does not make much difference because everyone ought to be helping people from the goodness of their heart and praying for the good of the world anyway. I am not aware of any therapists who promise a vacation of bad karma since no such thing exists.

Past life readings are serious undertakings and no respected medium will undertake it to satisfy your curiousity or prove to you that reincarnation is true. Subjects are required to state their specific reasons for requesting a reading and if in the opinion of the medium they are not good enough, you are denied a reading. Before commencing, the medium says a short prayer, asking her spiritual guides to reveal THAT WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW.

Thus there is no ground to say that therapists are violating any tenets.

Bear in mind that most religions that teach the doctrine of reincarnation do not advocate “past life therapies” and I think there is a lot of wrong in anyone trying to use these sessions as “proof” of reincarnation.

Your assertion that people should be aware of what they are being punished for is a good point. But the doctrine of reincarnation does not counter this in any way. It will require a longer write-up to explain that but let me just state that there are different levels of awareness and having the lessons you need ingrained in your subconscious mind may be sufficient. That is how it is meant to work, since being aware of your past lives can cause you a lot of problems. And there are lives between earth lives, and schools between schools, and incarnations are carefully guided devoid of chaos so the right lessons are learnt. This is what the doctrine teaches.

InesQor: (2) I believe the refining is a personal participation that is built on one's exposure to the profits and losses that are engrained in the experience of the karmic garment / energy (to use your words) one comes across. One can then judge for themselves in similar decisions where the ones who have gone by, have either passed or failed in decision. That experience gets to be re-lived and thus it gets more refined as discerning the quality of the decisions.

I hope my view is clear 

Well, I pass on this one, as I fail to find the "meaning".

But lemme just say that my understanding of the op is somewhat, just somewhat, different from some expressed in the thread. In no way does the oneness of existence or infinity contradict the matter of personal identity. I am InesQor. Still I am me. Some of the ancient texts explain it well.

Thank you. Really good writing.

I don't agree that mankind has remained morally unimproved and I would seriously question your understanding of past life therapies.

But here is my main concern: What refining value is added by picking up someone else's karmic garment or absorbing karmic energies floating about?

(Just by the way, I do believe in the oneness of existence, disagree, as people may, on details.)

For the first time Ohaneze has a good point to make but they have to spoil it by throwing in the word Igbo. Who told them there were no Igbo victims in Kano or that only the Igbo were victims of the other attacks?

What I don't get is the propriety or legality of a direct CBN donation to a state government on behalf terror victims. And Sanusi, a man I have considerable respect for, needs to explain what informed the choice of this particular incident.