₦airaland Forum

@davidylan,

Seriously, are you in anyway related to noetic15?

Anyways, that aside. Your post is a very funny one, I don't even know how to respond.

First of all, I want us to be clear on something here. The issue is NOT about the concept of heaven, but about the etymology of the singular word, "heaven".

Secondly, I'm sure you're aware that the Bible you read today, was translated from another language. As such, your claim that the English word "heaven" is "PURELY biblical" is at best, ridiculous.

Thirdly, the modern English word "Heaven" itself was derived from the medieval English word "heven" around 1159, which developed from the Old English "heofon".

Fourthly, even if the word "Heaven" is indeed "PURELY biblical" as you claim, your supposition that it is exclusively a Biblical term which no other party can adopt, is even more ridiculous. This is an issue of language, and it is no news that language has ALWAYS metamorphosed since the beginning of time.

Lastly, "heofon" which later metamorphosed into "heaven", originally meant "sky", "firmament", etc. It was later when it became "heaven" that the definition was extended to include "God's abode", perhaps because it was generally perceived that God lives "up there". As you can see, the original meaning of the word itself has absolutely NO religious basis, so I find it very absurd for you to come here and claim that it your own religion that invented the word.

So with the above explanation, my word still stands - Heaven na heaven. Whichever version of heaven you now choose to dwell upon is none of my own business.

Regards.

davidylan:
this is horribly false and is an example of the subtle but malicious attempts to strip away purely biblical terms by giving them broad but meaningless new definitions.

Heaven is PURELY a biblical term, it exists NOWHERE ELSE.

Horribly false, you say? "Heaven" is purely a biblical term? Are you in anyway suggesting that the word "heaven" was coined arbitrarily by one of the writers of the Bible? If yes, by whom? It exists nowhere else? Are you for real?

@ Deep Sight

This is not to excuse banom's stupidity (sorry, I couldn't think of a better word), but I think tpia is equally very stupid, if not more (again, I'm sorry).  Infact, they are BOTH very PUERILE.

tpia is a resident troublemaker on this forum.  A lot of times, she starts the trouble and she then proceeds to play the victim just to gain people's sympathy.  A very good example is on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-314028.0.html#msg4751442 where she attacked banom for no known reason.  The manner in which these two keep derailing almost every available thread should worry any well-meaning individual.  And to think these two people are ADULTS (in age anyway) is really pathetic.

My point is this, whatever punishment is going to be meted out on these two should be EQUAL.

davidylan:
islam has no heaven . . . only al jaanat which translates to "paradise". Get your facts right.

But Allah lives there, doesn't he? Heaven, etymologically speaking, simply means "a place where God dwells". Whichever God or whichever version of heaven you choose to dwell on is irrelevant here. Heaven na heaven.

@noetic15

Your last response in our Elijah debate, and your subsequent responses on this thread have just confirmed by fears.  You're a pathetic and dishonest debater.  I sensed that the first time I engaged you.

There seems to be this inherent, albeit unhealthy pride in you, that makes you to always rebut condescendingly whenever an opposing view/idea negates your submissions. Not a good "Christian" virtue, if you ask me.

This is made evident in the way you mischieviously evade questions by trickishly answering questions with questions, and the more criminal one - attempting to make the other party look stupid by inferring that they have misinterpreted your post, or that they read upside down, or that they cannot read at all.

Anyway, it's obvious what you're up to, every sensible person here can clearly see through your mischief.

I give up on you. . . for now.

I guess banom was right.  Deep Sight, continue at your own risk.

@noetic15

noetic15:
1. You FALSELY claimed that the word "heaven" in that verse refered to the abode of God. . . .  , yet u fail to contextually explore the meaning of that word in greek or hebrew like u claimed. . . . .what does that tell?

Sorry, I just realised I was wrong.  The "heaven" in that verse, in greek translation, actually refers to the sky, clouds, planets, etc.  My previous assertion was as a result of reading that Elijah story on Bible.cc, where I was referred to Jesus' ascension in Mark 16 - to show some kind of correlation.  Nonetheless, this has created even more questions.

noetic15:
2. the 50 men as prophets still went to search for Elijah simply for the same reasons I stated in my initial post. . .did u bother to read it? 

I read your initial post.  So you mean they went to search for Elijah to ensure he was safe?  Didn't they receive a vision from GOD that he was going to be taken?  Were they doubtful of God's words?  Or they didn't understand the vision they saw?  Did they really think God would take Elijah, only to endanger him (or why did they feel the need to ensure his safety)? Didn't the sons of the prophets trust God? Oh well, they were SONS of the prophets, not prophets themselves.  Besides, it's not like the whirlwind just came and blew him off just like that.  He was taken up in a Chariot of Fire (certainly not something ordinary, if you ask me), and so they should have been wise enough to know they didn't need to search for him, unless they really were IGNORANT.  Elisha knew better, and that was why he told them not to bother themselves, even though they still insisted.

noetic15:
4. Yes there are two jehorams. . . . .  .did i not connect the jehoram in question to Elijah?. . . . .did u read my post at all?

Sorry, but I didn't seem to get your "connection" well.  Maybe I should rather present my argument in form of a question then.

King Jehoshaphat of JUDAH had a SON who took over after his death.  This son was King Jehoram of JUDAH.  (1 Kings 22:50)

King Ahaziah of ISRAEL had a BROTHER who took over, because Ahaziah himself had no son.  This BROTHER was King Jehoram of ISRAEL. (2 Kings 1:17).  Both of them were sons of King Ahab who was murdered in a battle.

Elijah was still very much on earth at this period.  Proof?

In 2 Kings 1:16, Elijah had stated that Ahaziah would die, then he died.  In the next verse, we're told Jehoram, his brother, ascended the throne, which was also IN the second year of the reign of the other Jehoram, the son of the late Jehoshaphat, king of JUDAH. (Jehoram was already king of JUDAH for TWO YEARS even while Ahaziah was still king of ISRAEL, and obviously, Elijah hadn't ascended by then). So if Jehoram of JUDAH ruled while Elijah was still on earth, and while Jehoshaphat was LONG GONE, which Jehoshaphat ruled in Elisha's time?  Did he re-incarnate?

Note: The incidence in 2 Chronicles 21 was about the Jehoram of JUDAH, and it has already been established in 2 Kings 1:16-17 that Elijah was still very much around at this time of his reign.

But even if Jehoram had received that letter years after Elijah's ascension, how did the letter get to him if Elijah was in some sky, space, or some other planet? Remember, the Bible clearly states that he was taken up into "heaven" which has already been defined by you, contrary to claims that he was taken to another part of the earth.

noetic15:
I added it on examining the link u presented. I am honest enough to admit my err. . .I dont appreciate u shamelessly copying from websites, providing sources but not proffering analyses. . . . .am I debating with a website?

You really do have some harsh words to throw about, don't you?  Which is really shameless?  You plagiarizing someone else's words, taking full credit for it in the process, and subsequently playing ignorant when exposed, OR I, who presented a post which adequately, yet succinctly, addressed all I could ever have written on the subject matter, and actually went on to acknowledge the source?  Besides, the post was self-explanatory.  Which further analyses did you need again?

In addition to what Deep Sight has said, didn't God Himself state that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion? (Rom 9:13-16).  Even though it has been expressly stated in John 14:6 that Jesus is the only way, can we not conclude based on the Romans text that God can always use His discretion from time to time? God is not a programmed being, is He?

It's just like in the court of law.  Even though there are clearly spelt-out consequences for every offence in the constitution, we still see lawyers debate and present their points from different angles, and the judge ultimately uses his discretionary powers to pass judgement.  A student-lawyer friend of mine always says that in law, the man isn't guilty if the mind is not gulilty.

Looking at it from another angle, could John 14:6 really mean that, no one comes to the father expect by living a life which Jesus expects of everyone - a life of love, a life of doing good always?  Would that not still be the same as "accepting Him"?

@noetic15

noetic15:
I did not get my points from the link in question and I do not expect that u would falsely assert that. , . , . though I do concede that I have read some of their (gnmagazine) books in the past.

You just added this. Why did you modify your post?

Wow. . . noetic15 getting defensive?  That's funny.  I expected you to present a superior argument, not this ad hominem rebuttal.

noetic15:
Do me a favour, when ever u want to debate with me or address any issue I raise. . . always drop your pre-conceived notions.

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean when you say "pre-conceived notions".  What exactly does that mean and how does it apply to this discourse?

noetic15:
This is the second and last time I will tell u this.
I did not get my points from the link in question and I do not expect that u would falsely assert that. 

I'm really sorry for making unfounded assumptions about your post, though I believe anyone would easily commit the same error, considering the striking similarity between your post and the article - words almost verbatim, points presented almost in the same manner, scriptural references almost the same throughout.  Once again, I apologize.

noetic15:
1. Can u help me with the usage of the "heaven" word in greek and hebrew? what was the word used in this context. . .  , and how was it refering to the abode of God?

I'm really sorry, but I cannot help you.  Last time I checked, Google was still free.

noetic15:
2. 2 kings 2:5 tells that the 50 men who eventually went to look for Elijah were prophets, who had received revelations from God about the "ascension" of Elijah. they told Elisha that Elijah was to be taken up. were they ignorant of Elijah's future? since they had heard from God, why would they go to seek for Elijah again when Elisha came back?
do u read the bible upside down? 

Good you mentioned that.  So since they already knew that Elijah was going to be taken, why then did a whole FIFTY of them decide to still go search for him for THREE whole days?

noetic15:
where did I insinuate this?  can u fit a date to the events of 2 chronicles? . . .  .this would be appreciated.

Come on, noetic!  Don't be lazy.  You can easily verify all these by yourself.  Oh, and by the way, I didn't claim you insinuated anything.  I was actually hoping you weren't.
[center]

Purist:
I hope you are not of the erroneous belief that the books of the Bible are arranged in a sequential chronological order?

[/center]
       

noetic15:
The rubbish above requires simple common sense and not rocket science.

1. do u know who king Jehosaphat is? was Elijah around during his reign?
If he wasnt. . ,  .how could he have been around during the reign of his son? did elijah and elisha experience prophethood at the same season?

With this response, you just convinced me that you didn't bother to check the scriptural references presented to buttress the FACT that there are TWO Jehorams in the Bible.

noetic15:
its ok if u reply my posts. . . but try to use your brain before pressing the reply button. . . .  , thank u.

Okay.  Point taken.

Hi noetic15,

Your submissions, so far, have been quite interesting.  However, I have some reservations.  Obviously, you got most of your points about the Elijah-Heaven explanation HERE.  That's not a problem at all, save that you didn't take enough time to cross-check some of the writer's points properly.

noetic15:
reason2: when Elijah was taken away by the whirlwind . . . .several men (50) went out looking for him to ensure he was safe (2 kings 2:17). This shows that quite unlike our present belief, these people believed that Elijah was taken to a different place and not heaven, God's abode like we assume today.

2 Kings does NOT allude to Elijah being "taken up" into another place, as you imply.  2 Kings 2:11 clearly states that he went up by a whirlwind into heaven. Check the usage of the word "heaven" in a greek or hebrew translation, and you'll realise it actually refers to God's abode in this context.  Those who were searching for Elijah, according to that passage, were obviously ignorant of Elijah's "divine journey", especially as they thought the whirlwind had literally blown him off to some mountain (2 Kings 2:16), hence their offer to help search for him.  Come to think of it, if the sons of the prophets really believed that Elijah was taken up into another kind of heaven, as opposed to God's abode, and as you and the writer would like to make us believe, then why would they have bothered to organize an exhaustive search for Elijah? (THREE whole days!)  Were they dumb?  Or are you, or the writer in anyway implying that the "mountain" or "valley" talked about in the passage, would pass for some other definition of heaven too?  In fact, the folly of this ridiculous assertion is further made evident by the fact that Elisha - who actually knew better - had told the 50 men to save their breath.  In another situation, we read of Jesus ascending into heaven too (Mark 19:16).  The composition of this statement, in the original hebrew or greek translation, is actually the same as that of the Elijah situation as well, only that this time, Jesus' sitting position in His new abode was emphasized.

noetic15:
Their belief is strengthened by the fact that Elijah eventually sends a letter to the reigning king of Israel many years after his whirlwind ascension (2 chronicles 21:12-15).

I hope you are not of the erroneous belief that the books of the Bible are arranged in a sequential chronoligical order?

For starters, the book of 2 Chronicles is a RECORD of events between the beginning of Solomon's reign (970 B.C.) and the beginning of Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.).  Interestingly, Elijah is described to have lived in the 9th century B.C. in the Kingdom of Israel during the reign of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, who ruled either between 869 B.C. and 850 B.C. or between 874 B.C and 853 B.C., depending on which scholarly historical analysis one follows.  Therefore, it is very wrong of you to assume that the events in 2 Chronicles, including Chapter 21, took place "many years" after Elijah's ascension.

noetic15:
The king who recieved the letter was king Jehoram. Jehoram was the son of King Jehosaphat. Jehosaphat ruled during the life of Elisha's prophethood. . . . . that was after Elijah's ascension.

There is no indication that Elijah went up to heaven before he sent the letter to King Jehoram of Judah. We read at 1 Kings 22:50 and 2 Kings 1:17 that Jehoram became King of Judah two years before a different King Jehoram became king of Israel. It wasn't until the NEXT chapter at 2 Kings 2:11 (during the reign of this other King Jehoram of Israel) that we read of Elijah's ascension into heaven.

It is important to note that nowhere does the Bible give a specific year for Elijah's translation into heaven. We only know that it happened sometime during the reign of King Jehoram of Israel. Since King Jehoram of Judah (who received the letter from Elijah) had already been reigning two years by the time King Jehoram of Israel took the throne, Elijah could have easily sent his letter to King Jehoram of Judah before his ascension into heaven at 2 Kings 2:11.

2 Chronicles 21:19 notes that Jehoram of Judah began to experience the effects of the condemning words in Elijah's letter two years before he died in the eighth year of his reign, so it is reasonable to conclude that Elijah's letter and his subsequent translation to heaven occurred sometime between Jehoram of Judah's second to sixth year of reign.

Source: http://www.4witness.org/jwscripture/jw_2chron21_12.php#f2b

noetic15:
Are letters sent from heaven?. . , .Elijah was simply in the outer place in an unknown land, recorded as heaven.

Busted.

@Deep Sight

Deep Sight:
1. Those who heard, understood, and rejected it and

  2. Those who heard, but could not understand on account of belonging to a foreign culture or belief system

3. The nation of Jews, still practicing Judaism and still awaiting the Messiah even today

I love the way you have categorized this.  I have always been of the opinion that most people do not reject the gospel just for the sake of it. Most reject it because it simply doesn't make any sense to them at all.  Even for those who previously accepted (most likely by virtue of being born in that religion), I believe that they only reject on the basis that everything no longer made any sense to them anymore, most likely due to some personal experiences or some deep reflection, and not because they wish to be deliberately rebellious. I find it really ridiculous that anyone would seriously believe that anyone else that isn't an adherent of their own faith would have, as a reward, some negative post-death experience.

Can you people friggin' read? Or you people don't understand simple English?!!

This isn't about singing secular music in church, it's about ADAPTING such music (lyrics or tunes) into worship song! Damn!!

De Splash:
I think it's wrong, including all those "Awilo dance" I see
in churches these days.

Lol. . . so I'm guessing you'd love to see "Christian dances" instead. So pray, define "Christian dance".

@noetic15

noetic15:
u confirmed my fears about your preconceived notions. next time u get into a debate with anyone, leave all your dogmas behind and address the issues.
stop running from healthy debates.

Lol. . . I knew you'd say something. I've realised you always love to have the last say in every debate you engage in. I used to be like that. I should leave all my dogma? Do you even know what dogma means? Yes I admit I'm running, because I know the debate isn't going to be a healthy one. Anyways, have fun!

When will people learn how to read for God's sake?!

It's an ADAPTATION of lyrics, damn it!

The problem I see with most people here is that once they hear "Secular Music", a picture of D'banj, Ruggedman, et al instantly pops up in their head.

Asa is a secular musician, but I can easily adapt her lyrics and tunes into a worship song that will so move the heavens.  Michael Jackson too. 

@beknown

Secular music = kingdom of darkness?

Oh my God, what has religion turned people into?!

@ OP

Someone once aptly said, "There are no Christian songs, there are only Christian lyrics".

Ride on bro, nothin' do you!

@noetic15

Lol. . . I am not attempting to reconstruct DeepSight's intent and question to suit any preconceived notion, and I'm glad he's come out to explicate his stance on this issue.  I don't agree that he shifted the goalpost in the middle of the game, rather, it's you who didn't realise the correct positioning of the goalpost in the first place.  Anyways, I guess it's all settled now, and I hope you'll take some time off to reflect on your own comments so you'll realise that you've been so-so NOT objective at all.

On the issue of the rationality or otherwise of faith, I suggest we just drop that argument, as I see your ridiculous rejoinders as an attempt to initiate some circumlocutory debate, which I'm very much UNinterested in.

Regards.

@noetic15

noetic15:
I hate to think u simply choose to disagree with me for no concrete reason. DeepSight made mention of heaven and he was also specific about the jewish carpenter. . . .so what other heaven are we talking about?. . . . .so why should another version of heaven be subject to the debate?

I apologize if I come across as being intransigent.  I just can't seem to be able to reconcile your statements with your self-acclaimed objectivity.  DeepSight was specific about the Jewish Carpenter because he is fully aware of your religious inclination.  He would have made mention of Mohammad if he was talking to a Muslim.  At the end, I see his mention of heaven as just a euphemism for "escaping some eternal punishment".  The point is, if you really can give a fair judgement of those two, independent of any religious beliefs, you'd see the flaw in your assumed "objectivity".  If you really do believe these two fellows will burn in some hell for eternity, and you still maintain that you're being objective, then I'm afraid, very afraid.

noetic15:
u have not told me what it means to be strenghtened?

strength·en (strngkthn, strng-, strn-)
v. strength·ened, strength·en·ing, strength·ens
v.tr.
To make strong or increase the strength of.
v.intr.
To become strong or stronger.

How does this relate to faith being (ir)rational?

@noetic15

noetic15:
On the contrary, your post simply supports the fact that I am an objective person.

No sir, you're wrong. My post suggests no such thing. On the contrary, your rejoinder has only assisted in accentuating the point I made about your supposition earlier on.

noetic15:
1. Heaven is the creation and home of Jesus. . .

The Christian version of heaven, yes. Again, you have only given the subsequent explanations under the belief that your own version of heaven is the true one, which of course shows that no one can EVER be objective when it comes to matters of faith.

noetic15:
3. Faith in God is NOT irrational, contrary to your claim.

In the bible, all those who had faith in God were STRENGTHENED before their request was granted. what do u think it means to be strengthened?

So their strength automatically translates to rationality? See, I have read so many times here where even Christians have admitted that faith is irrational. You claiming otherwise, to me, is an attempt to just dance around with words. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you really can rationalize that, I'll be shocked.

@noetic15

noetic15:
of course . . , is there any reason to think contrary?

No, you can't claim to be objective. . . and yes, there IS a reason to think contrary.

The reason is this - Religion is faith-based, and since faith in itself is irrational, it is safe to conclude that no religious person can be objective when it comes to matters of their faith.  You only believe what you believe because it is what you've always heard, read or felt is right, and based on some other factors best known to you, you tend to take it as the sole truth.  Now, if you can take just one moment to step out of your religious beliefs, which I know is quite a difficult thing to do, you'd realise that your supposition on Mahatma Ghandi and Dalai Lama is FAR from being objective.  As a Christian, you have every reason to believe they're both hell-bound because that is what your religion teaches, and you believe it to be the truth.  But in reality, you're not being objective, because your own belief system is not the only one that exists. . . but then of course, you don't care because you ardently believe yours to be the only right one.

Objectivity is looking at things strictly as they are without bias. But when you begin to present arguments based solely on your own belief system, regardless of any other, then you're being biased, and so you can't claim to be objective.  I hope you get my point.

[quote author=George_D link=topic=324433.msg4557664#msg4557664 date=1253130151]all those advocating plastic surgery, remember stella oooo! a word is enough! [/quote]This is like saying people should not travel by air again because of the Bellview, Sosoliso, etc plane crash of 3 yrs ago. I'm sure many people must have done, and are still undergoing the same surgery Stella did without any problems. Stella's case was simply unfortunate.

naijamark:
You must only be a bastard to so much degrade our culture. Tribal mark is our culture.

Speaking out against, or outrightly hating tribal marks is not the same as degrading "our culture".  Tribal marks are BARBARIC, and no, this has got nothing to do with wanting to be like 'em whites.

P.S.  The mental image of tribal marks I have up here is the Ibadan type and its numerous cousins.

Sorry to digress, but mazaje. . .

Your argument makes sense.   I read your other thread about why you left christianity, your concerns appear genuine to me, though I think your reasons for deciding to disbelieve in the existence of God are not good enough.

Concerning your posts here, I want to believe you are a rational thinker (or freethinker, as most atheists like to put it).  So, I'll like to know. . . have you ever thought of it from this angle, that Science only explains the effect of things that were caused by the supernatural, and only gives empirical evidence of the cause as seen by we mortal beings?   Now, this not about the God of the bible or koran, since it appears you have a big problem with both of them.  It's about the existence of some Supernatural Cause/Supreme Being, and for the sake of this argument, let's call that - God.

I applied for some "EDAIDS Scholarship" a few months back.  ALL of us that applied got shortlisted, and that was when I started getting suspicious.  My suspicions were confirmed when we were asked to pay a certain sum of money into an ATM card number for "aptitude test logistics".

The point is, ANY scholarship scheme that asks you to pay even One Naira for being shortlisted is a COMPLETE FRAUD.  Keep away from such.

It's obvious that many crooks are now taking advantage of the penchant of Nigerian students for scholarships, by setting up some bogus scholarship websites, while disguising as a scholarship organisation, all with the sole aim of scamming people.

I advise that you only stick to scholarship schemes you're familiar with, or that have credible, verifiable sources, such as Total, Chevron, Mobil, Shell scholarships, etc.

Meanwhile, you can check out the 2009/2010 scholarship scheme by Total here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-323289.0.html

vanni:
Oyedepo is a winner anyday, his name always generates the longest threads,

OBJ, IBB et al always generate "the longest threads" too. I guess they're all "winners" as well.

@mazaje

mazaje:
we know very little about the universe to make any definate proclamations about it

Doesn't this statement contradict your belief/non-belief about the existence of God?  Since you admit that we know very little about the universe, how then are you so sure that this same universe could not have been created by some God?

davinson:
what Sound Lecturers do OAU have? Maybe the OAU of Old.I'm a student there, and i can testify that their lectures are nothing to write home about,You can only understand if u're exceptionally Good.

A good number of them are sound, not all, actually. Maybe the other not-so-good lecturers make up the bulk in your faculty/department?

davinson:
I wonder why they are clamouring for pay rise.This whole Lecturers Strike is not making any sense to me.

Perhaps, you wouldn't need to wonder if your dad was a lecturer.

[size=14pt]Guys, guess what? This FOOL is actually the Deputy Chairman of the Senate committee on Human Rights.

You can make your grieviances known to him by sending him a mail: http://www.nassnig.org/house/member.php?member=275

I just did. [/size]

PAININASS:
No i didn't mean that,but he suppose to know everybody in the house

[size=13pt]Chinelo Nwulu, the security personnel was engaged recently by the National Assembly to screen workers and visitors entering and leaving the Assembly complex in Abuja, the nation’s capital city.[/size]
Source: http://www.channelstv.com/newsdetails.php?news_id=14116

That was his SOLE job. . . to SCREEN ANYBODY entering the complex, senator or no senator.

delejames:
That isn't a good question,you should have asked how many good lecturers do they have in their schools?

Of course it's a valid question. Where are these "good lecturers" going to deliver their lectures? In your 15-people-in-a-room hostel? And BTW, I don't know about his/your school, but in OAU, there are a very good number of SOUND lecturers there.