₦airaland Forum

God forbid that you should be a leper to us, Crossman!

Just relax on the oyaks issue - only God judges and can implement judgment! Discuss issues and leave him, them, everyone to God!

Time will vindicate you if you are GodKs voice in the matter. For now, just leave his issue

What do you wish to farm i.e. what kind of crops, as 10 acres is not large for industrialized farming

^

Interestingly even this thread follows what I have said. Goshen360 "leaned" too much to one side and that is all they have been attacking! Harried and trying to rally, he too seemed to have fallen in the same trap. Satan uses the same tricks!  

That is why I tried to pull him back and you will notice (to his credit), he DID pull back, showing he wasn't fanatic like they tried to make him seem!


[size=18pt]AND YES[/size]

Abuse of giving is the real problem most of us have! "Give to Church", "it belongs to church only","that is where your blessing is, a high priest gets you 100%, a senior priest gets you 60%, a ordinary pastor gets you 30%, church member gets you 10%, outsider gets you 5% AND IF YOU DARE GIVE an almagiri, you get a bomb in return"

Funny though, isn't it, that the almagiri might not have become an animal & killed your brother IF YOU HAD SHOWED HIM LOVE!

I think what you disagreed with in the past, Debosky, was not my ideas (which have not changed) but my style of delivery, which definitely tended to attrition.


Some people have perfected the art of camouflage; log in with one ID, say something, log out, return as someone else and support. If need be, they obfuscate and challenge contrary points of view gradually derailing issues. Because they are criminal in nature, they keep changing and of course, using supporters more vacuous than themselves, gradually make you (the supposed opponent) the point! Harried and frustrated at seeing so much dishonesty, you lose temper and of course, the head-man (who is probably the same person) comes in again, ending up looking like a teacher of mature standing!

Truly is the devil a wise adversary. Very sharp and very aware of our emotions and how to use them against us! When push comes to shove, we share much, me & you - tithes were the main problem back then and remember, LIKE GOSHEN, I never fought against tithes EXCEPT AS being of compulsion based on the Word. However, they harped on technicalities in whatever one said till it seemed it was selfishness and turned it upside down! I have re-read dozens of threads and now know how to handle such issues.

Happy new year, by the way

^^

@Goshen360:

I think what you are missing is that you are arguing against differing sets of people.

1 set (Debosky etc) are fair and wish to stop you from leaning too far in one direction thus becoming as it were, too rigid about something that truly actually depends on motives. If for example, a "missionary" (left family, not working so he can minister in a village, to lepers in their colony etc) receives a "regular" support, I think this is alright and I believe you do too. His family may receive a regular fixed "salary" from a group of people who in effect have formed a "church" whether they be a named church or not. That is an example of scriptural-ly sound support for ministers. You will find yourself wrong if you continue to NOT separate these people from second set.

Set 2 are almost all aspiring "pastors" or worshipers of such. They were brought up on corrupted doctrine and for them, the Gospel must be about profit! There is nothing you can do about these since they serve "pastor" and "tummy". Ignore them and just defend truth so that others can see a differing opinion.

I personally agree with you but tend towards what I believe set 1 is saying - there are circumstances that may require ministers get a salary. However, such are not to be deliberately sought for and should occur ONLY because of circumstances.

One question I wish to ask everyone - is there a Christian here who has asked God what his life vocation should be who did not hear that he should go preach? If then God wants US ALL to preach, why should it default to salaries except for those who circumstances force into dire situations AS WE FIND in the Biblical examples?

@Moodie:

sorry -just a bit of fun

That last is pretty potent and currently applicable to our "show" pastors and pastresses.

Eye don dey clear too much

Enigma:
[size=13pt]Firifiri l'oju n r'imu, bọọbọ l'agutan n'wo.

t'ija t'ija lo n ṣe ti ọmọri odo ati iya rẹ, ẹ bẹrẹ si ma lu ara yin![/size]

Ifaa Iru-Ekun

^^

Pastor_Kun still dey vex with Joagbaje?

How have you been, anyway?

No frustrations here, Sir & thus no requirement now or ever to eja-cu-late on NL! I only wonder why this polity is being heated up simply because I trusted my audience to be of such quality as to make inquiries from google (an impersonal guide)!

As I stated earlier, how many examples or references can one give? Which would be why someone accorded much more respect and academic capability was expected to take out a few minutes for personal research! this more so when what has now being stated only just starts to scratch the surface!

But then, I may be giving respect whist not being accorded any so the perception may have been of nuclearboy being perfectly vacuous and lacking in substance! I should thus re-examine self, I guess but still maintain - an even cursory application of intellect towards checking out my "vacuous" claim would have "cooled the polity".

Best regards

@numo86:

While attacking Image123, could you please ask yourself this - You say Jesus is seated ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD and NOT sharing the same spot! But is there right hand side and left hand side in the Spirit? Or in Heaven?

Did you ever consider that these words were purely descriptive of "standing" or do you expect Jesus is some kind of Chief, the Holy Ghost another chief, Michael is another chief etc while God is the one they prostrate in front of?

"comparing spiritual things to spiritual things" is what you might want to remember here

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!

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

Anyway, a start would be looking at "gender based" translations in the NIV which tend towards a more politically correct equality of the se-xes!

And I believed you to be of those who do\did not require spoon-feeding. That respect made me throw it open "loosely" earlier believing even the most cursory google search would clarify much.! Its alright though, you still remain very much respected!

Hi:

do you have ignition coils (2006 pathfinder) now? What will an entire set (all 6 as set out in d engine) cost?

you could reply here or (as last time) via nlbomb@gmail.com

^^ Google will clarify my point from the POV of the Christian who's not being politically correct

^ Nuclearbaby has been around O, sucking his thumb & looking over your shoulders to be sure you were who he believed.

He is very proud of many people here including some currently disagreeing!

Zikko-Baba, God be with you

@deep-run:

you don mend finally

Chei, see yabbing! Werin dey worry DeepRun DeepSight wey you dey run from nuclearbaby?

Nuclearboy don "repent" so no wahala!

Anyway, what I meant was that while he referred to that and seemed to have put across a valid point ,I still had an opinion on it.

I am simply contesting the issue of hierachy and "greater than" on the basis I have explained below

For further clarity, let us use the Brain, the Hands (both accounted as ONE) and the eyes (also as ONE)

Which is most important?

Deep-Sprinter, Which is better? To lose both eyes OR to lose both Hands or to be an slowpoke/mongoloid?

Which of these 3 would thus be "greater"? Blind dude, no-hands dude or zero-brains dude?

Now transpose - God without Character, God without Hands or God without Spirit/Purpose?

Then you will understand my point that all are equal just as Jesus made us understand that no part of the body is more important than another!

If you don't agree, please block your bunghole for 2 weeks and you'll get my point

@numo86:

Kindly AVOID using terms like confused when referring to nuclearboy - such terms are NOT welcome!

@Olaadegbu:

The issue of hierarchy and a Father "greater" than Jesus! Using my same allegory of the human Spirit, Soul and Body, would you be willing therefore to state that one is "GREATER" than the others? Of course we all understand that the Spirit is what makes the life but could that "spirit" have expression outside of Soul (character) and Body (presence)? I hope you get my point that none is thus greater since there is interdependence between them!

Using that line of reasoning, you find that "supremacy" is not a word that can be used in such a union! Rather, it more closely resembles an "old wives tale" based on "what is unseen is considered (note that word) greater not because it is but because we ascribe more to it due to fear of the unknown! In that sense, for me, Jesus is enough

NIV is a notoriously compromised version of the Bible!

Just saying

Maybe I am wrong but I still see this thing different!

I guess we all here believe in the concept of human Spirit, Soul and Body. While the Spirit remains the essence or powerhouse, the body is the physical reality, the representation and souls remain the "Will", the character.

The Father I see as the Essence, who the other 2 are tied to but removed and not to be found outside of them just as none can identify the Spirit of a dead! Jesus would then be the person we see and relate to and the soul the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was not being dubious on the Cross - He was "removed" albeit temporarily! At risk of annoying those reading this, I'd use a mad man on the street as an example - no longer in his mind, the madman is still himself while separated from his essence. God remains much more complicated and if we truly believe He is as powerful as we like to claim, this surely ought not be a problem for the Almighty who can show as a small still voice, a fire before Israel, a dove appearing at Jesus Baptism etc! Or do we say God had left heaven when the dove came upon Christ?

Another comforter is even simpler - one (Jesus) was as it were, finite general and the other was to be personal to each of us. In that sense, it was "another" but the same essence.

Whichever way we look at itn my questions

1. Is Jesus less than God
2. Is the Holy Spirit less than God
3. Who then is more superior between Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

OLAADEGBU:
Thanks for bringing my attention to how he put his foot in his mouth again. It was in today's newspapers, and this goes on to show that these so called "atheists" are actually intellectual schizophrenics; [size=15pt]They know that there is God but they chose to believe that He doesn't exist[/size].

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101289/Richard-Dawkins-unable-remember-Charles-Darwins-seminal-work.html

They don't choose to believe He doesn't exist! They merely say it just to support their earlier postulations even though they know the truth

Great to see you re-emphasize the above

It solves the problem this thread poses

WE CANNOT explain these things adequately and so needs find where our confluence of agreement is which we have seen thus far

Can we then agree to sheath swords and apply selves to more productive ventures standing against the real enemies within Christianity ?

Quite an issue here! Until I was about 19, I saw Jesus as somewhat of a smaller "lesser" God than the Father! An argument with a roommate at Uni made me believe the manifestation is the reality.

What I mean is - if any of us (with our varying understandings and beliefs) require to see God today, I believe what we will be shown is Jesus! So who IS Jesus then if He is the physical revelation of God? Plus John clarifies His identity to a "T". This academic exercise seems to me somewhat of confusion for that reason as none can show me God outside of Jesus! Even better, none can show Jesus aside of being Lord and the definition of that "Godship" is made abundantly clear & without any ambiguity by Isaiah

Even more worthy of consideration in things like this is the certainty we have that practically anything can be justified using the Bible (for those with standpoint of "I want to win this argument". With that at the back of our minds, I wish to ask

1. Would any of us ascribe less Glory or power to Jesus as opposed to the Father?
2. Which of us supports the Prosperity idea of us being equal to Jesus & therefore equal to God?

I re-iterate that these are all semantics and impact little on the Christian walk!

Jesus Is God
Father is God
Holy Ghost is God else as Aletheia has (as is usually brilliantly exposed), if this were not so, the Spirit of God would be different from the Holy ghost

Finally, I wish to say something to Frosbel - I mean this in the best possible way - you can be attitive and overtly emotional. I am sorry I was rude a few weeks ago but I maintain that only one mad promised me security, progress and welfare. If truly you wish to do good, you MUST know the evil will resist you and thus I say - show proof rather than speculations and hand me a handgun to execute anyone (including Buhari) and see if I will hesitate! Until you supporters of PDP have the same mindset, we will not progress as 160m People but continue the tribal, class based tripe that is wreaking our society

Accept my apologies - I am a Nigerian not a Yoruba

Seems Aletheia already settled this matter when he stated that words convey ideas which (my own words) are subject to interpretations and thus to error!

Frosbel threw something into this mix - the M Y S T E R Y of Godliness viz "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16

While this again is subject to interpretation, we agree that (at least on the surface), it is Jesus that manifested in flesh yet the Bible says that was God; that Jesus is He preached unto Gentiles yet the Bible again refers to Him as God and definitely twas Jesus that was received up into Glory! And of course, same reference insists that is God!

ergo Jesus = God!

I also believe that the word "Trinity" came about as an attempt to understand, explain and rationalize away the verse above.

On the "oneness" idea (as you put it), I would personally agree with that! Explaining the idea of "This is my Son" etc is really simple - all of us have referred to ourselves in the 3rd person. I can remember saying "Nuke, you are too much" a few days ago   - why cannot the Creator do same?

Or maybe its me who still remains clueless what this is about - but aside words, I honestly don't see the issue here!

Maybe its because I've been away but I really don't understand the argument here - seems everyone agrees

1. The Father is God
2. The Son is God
3. The Holy Spirit is God

so, whats the issue?

@Jesoul:

Great to see you on this thread - you remain one of NLs' finest

And yes, I hope to be a bit more active, thank you!

^^  

Anyway, I always was around! Stepped back to see what direction things would go in but was there

I do agree some make it worthwhile and our "dementos" remain too!  

@samg515:

make your request in the AUTOS section

Ah, Image,

Really sorry - twas initially like a fleeting cursory visit & my frame of mind was not settled! Happy new year, my brother and God bless you and yours 500% more than ever before.

I re-read your post again now and while in a way I agree with it, we also have to agree that the fear of going against "authority" does at times force what may seem like separation between spouses! One may be more scared of annoying God's representative more than the other thus implying a split caused by that authority

Think about it!

@Jesoul:

Respects, Ma'am!

@Dare2think:

Happy new year(s)

@Topic: I think its the fault of couples. While true that some are timid and don't wish to rock the boat ever, the other partner should complement and help weakness become strength!

Wow!

The oneness of existence - the capability to become another even while yourself, feel with them, be with them and see with them. True maturity that transcends food & drink and sees all in self & as self, thus becoming truly, a judge worthy of the name.

Na wa O, Pepsi! If no be say I know you, I for dey fear O

@Negro:

This issue offers a lot either way!

Please don't turn sentiments against yourself (when a big thing pushes you down, small things can then climb, , .)

I repeat - you are far deeper than this