₦airaland Forum

I have a 2gb ram HUAWEI honor 3c for sale

mrs bin gbagbo: ie by believing in Jesus, by praying, by fasting, by trying to abstain from sin etc. cant i make heaven with these?

who said you'll make heaven by going to church sef. Read mathew 7 verse 21 dt jesus will deny everybdy dt worshipd him excpt frm dos dt did d will of his father

Ekes5: How much did you bought it.

how much dd you bought it? see what English has caused oo...

God!!! pple ask a lot of dumb questions!

coretechng1: Techno and Infinix are the same dude
Just do a check,for every Techno ,there is an Infinix version.

Tecno and infinix re the same? i laff in Spanish!!

See as tecno users dy console demselves. Na waoooo...naive Nigerians claiming as long as he receives msgs and can call, that's OK for him!

miracle4: Chinese brands of android phones such as Itel, Tecno, Gionee and Infinix seems to have taken over Africa and other 3rd world countries. In Nigeria alone, it is either tecno or gionee when it comes to debate on which low-end android phone to go for.

I have witnessed countless number of dismal remarks by users of the African most populous forum (nairaland) on threads relating to reviews of one tecno smart phone or the other. This is unconnected with the frequency at which new model of tecno devices are launched with little or no difference in their specs.

So far, Tecno Phantom A1 from my point of view, has been their most successful device till date, everyone seems to be satisfied with the features it was saddled with, When we reviewed the tecno n7 device here comparing it with Gionee infinity and Infinix X450, it got the highest number of comments ‘cos users were eager to find out more about their favorite smartphones.


Today as 2013 draws closer to the finish, we decided to look into how this two Chinese mobile phone giants will fair in Nigeria come 2014. I will pick up three random phones from each in no particular order for a quick review, this is for some of us that hasn’t been following the trend lately.

Source.

OGA, gionee and infinix are Indian phones not China!

i can't believe no one has mentioned him! kickass is the man!

thorpido: where in my post did I say that.You are trying to say because the book has remained the same for many years,it's the real book.Many cult books and religious books have remained the same for many years.Big deal about a book remaining the same.The main thing are it's contents.

Talking about contents,the instruction about killing infidels,Jews and christians is part of the 'good' things about the quran remaining the same.As it was at the beginning,so is it now.

You and your illogical reasonings. And besides you didn't say anything about my references concerning ritual births.

thorpido: what you just wrote here doesn't prove anything.Many people have claimed to be inspired by God including those who attacked innocent souls and took their wives.
The books of Buddha and Hindu have also not been altered.Please come up with a better proof.

Glad you agree Bible has bn altered!

thorpido: Listen to yourself,a 'prophet' came and had a message.Another man came and claims that the message of the prophet before him is in his own book.How does that sound?

thorpido writes a book and many years later harbiola1 writes his own.The question is asked what thorpido wrote about,harbiola1 says you will find it in my book.How unintelligent!

The Quran is a divine inspiration from Allah(swt) which explains all the given books to every prophet. No one has altered it till date unlike the Bible. you even know that yoursef!

macof: I am not christian.

I dont have a holy book

My holy instructions are in my conscience, No man written book(bible, torah, koran) can be compared with Gods given instructions right in the Consciousness(Ori) of Men

If you live by a book you can never live by ur consciousness(Ori)

i can see you're smarter than God

macof: lol pastors and in fact all Christians cherypick

but seriously Africans dont have to follow the Mosaic laws or Sharia laws
those are Jewish and arab things

so you dnt ve to follow what your book preaches baah?? now i understand you properly..
" blind faith abi ?"

macof: hypocrite

see again ?? i said come in for a dialogue. defend my post abt bath and ablution instead of tagging me hypcrt

harbiola1: Wow wow wow! honestly i can't blame u for just one thing, and that is the fact that a normal person can't say their is no God.
I'm very aware of the fact that u and ur group are the wisest men on earth, bt that is in ur mind.

They re very good at shying away from questions. very good twisters!

Clapping!

Ezekiel 25 vs 6-7 ; "Clapping attracted God's curse which include the ffg: i will cut you off from the people and i will make you perish out of the countries. I will destroy you "

And you pplw still clap in churches today

who is deceiving who??

rationalmind: What a silly plagiarist. I implore all christians to please ignore this guy.

Unfollowing thread....

Ritual bath after intercourse
levit 15 : 18 "when a man lies with a woman and there's an evidence of semen, both must bath with water"
aw many of your pastors preaches or practise this ?
Even menstrual period
Levit 15:19 explains women shd av ritual bath after ha period. how many of your pastors preaches that?
see exodus 40 vs 30-32
Moses washed his hands and feet in preparation to worship his lord.
Even Jesus, John 13 v5-9
Jesus washed him sef too

All this re similar to the practise of Muslim today. aw many of you Christians or your pastors do this?

who is deceiving who?

rationalmind: What a silly plagiarist. I implore all christians to please ignore this guy.

Unfollowing thread....

you knw what ? i like your smarty way

[quote author=rationalmind][/quote]Are you kidding me, inspired by men? not jesus sorry that is not acceptable! as God communicate though his prophets nt men

as already prophesied by Jesus anyway " But in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandment of men "(mathew 15:9)

Matthew 17:21 No Text Howbeit this kind
goeth not out but by prayer and fasting
Matthew 18:11 No Text For the Son of man is
come to save that which was lost
Matthew 23:14 No Text Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour
widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long
prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater
damnation
Mark 7:16 No Text If any man have ears to
hear, let him hear.
Mark 9:44 No Text Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched
Mark 9:46 No Text Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched
Mark 11:26 No Text But if ye do not forgive,
neither will your Father which is in heaven
forgive your trespasses
Mark 15:28 No Text And the scripture was
fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered
with the transgressors.
Mark 16:9-20, The short Gospel according to
Mark does not include the resurrection and
ascension of Jesus, 12 verses. The long Gospel
according to Mark includes these 12 verses!!
Luke 9:54 Text Addition And when his disciples
James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt
thou that we command fire to come down from
heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luke 9:55 Text Addition But he turned, and
rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of.
Luke 10:1. “After these things the Lord
appointed other seventy ” Some Geek versions
have the number 70, others have 72
Luke 17:36 No Text Two men shall be in the
field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 22:19-20 Some Greek versions do not
have the last part of verse 19 and all of 20.
This is the part when Jesus said: The bread is
my body, and the wine is my blood.
Luke 23:17 No Text (For of necessity he must
release one unto them at the feast.)
John 3: 16-21 Some scholars think these are
Jesus’ words. Others think John added these
verses start with “For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life .
John 5:3 Text Addition In these lay a great
multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt,
withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
John 5:4 No Text For an angel went down at a
certain season into the pool, and troubled the
water: whosoever then first after the troubling
of the water stepped in was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had
John 7:53 to 8:11. The story of the woman
that was caught in Adultery does not exist. Old
and best Greek copies do not have these
verses?!
Acts 8:37 No Text And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And
he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 No Text Notwithstanding it pleased
Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:6-8 Some Greek copies add last part
of verse 6, verse 7, and first part of verse 8.
Acts 28:29 No Text And when he had said
these words, the Jews departed, and had great
reasoning among themselves.

Check http://bible.crosswalk.com/
Check http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/
bible
The serious question about the above deleted
verses is: Who added them in the beginning? And
why? There are big sections that added in Mark
16:9-20 and John 7:53 to 8:11. These are clear
evidence that the Church has tampered with the
New Testament. Are the above verses “inspired
corrections,” “inspired additions,” or “inspired
deletions.”? You decide

Not enuff ?? wait!

Now, let us look at the analysis of come critical
Bible verses which have been edited in the
context of contemporary views on abortion:
… That brings us to the text I want to
highlight here as another example of
politicized distortion via translation: Exodus
21:22-25.
Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the
New American Standard Bible’s 1977
revision of its 1971 original translation:
“And if men struggle with each other and
strike a woman with child so that she has a
miscarriage , yet there is not further injury,
he shall surely be fined as the woman’s
husband may demand of him; and he shall
pay as the judges decide. But if there is any
further injury, then you shall appoint as a
penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
You can see how this fits in the context of
the chapter. Here is another category of
victim for which another set of punishments
for violence is given. If a pregnant woman
gets struck “so that she has a miscarriage,”
but is not herself injured, then the man who
struck her must pay a fine. But if the woman
herself is injured, then the same rules and
punishments for striking any other (non-
slave) person apply — “life for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”
But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the
updated current version of the NASB:
“If men struggle with each other and strike a
woman with child so that she gives birth
prematurely, yet there is no injury , he shall
surely be fined as the woman’s husband
may demand of him, and he shall pay as the
judges decide. But if there is any further
injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty
life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise.”
“So that she has a miscarriage” has been
replaced with “so that she gives birth
prematurely.” [emphasis added]
Wait… what? Why the distinction between
miscarriage and premature birth with no injury
(presumably to the fetus/baby)? Because this
change in the text fits with the new view on
abortion which started to pervade U.S. politics
starting in the late 1970s:
… But something changed between 1977 and
1995 — something that had nothing to do
with scholarship, language, accuracy, fidelity
or readability.
American politics had changed between 1977
and 1995. It had polarized and radicalized
millions of American Protestants, rallying
them around a single issue and thus, as
intended, rallying them behind a single
political party.
In 1977, the sort of American Protestants
who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be
summed up in a single word. But by 1995,
they could be: “abortion.”
And for anti-abortion American evangelicals,
Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It
suggested that striking and killing an unborn
fetus was in a separate category from
striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill
a free person, you get the death penalty.
Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a
fine.
And so in 1995, like those earlier translators
who invented and inserted “Junias,” the
translators of the NASB reshaped this
passage. “She has a miscarriage, yet there is
not further injury” would, in consideration of
the changes in American politics since 1977,
henceforth be transformed into “she gives
birth prematurely, yet there is no injury.”
Politics — specifically, the political desire to
control women — shaped the translation of
that text. The translators changed the words
of the Bible to make it seem like it supported
their political agenda. They changed the
words of the Bible so that others reading it
would not be able to see that its actual
words challenged and contradicted their
political agenda. …
So the Bible is the “unchanging and inerrant”
word of God Almighty, according to these
fundamentalists who “read the Bible literally”…
until, apparently, it says something that they
don’t like. And then, what’s the solution?
Apparently, the solution is to change the text to
say what they want it to say.
Can anyone say hypocrisy? If these so-called
“literalists” are so willing to play fast and loose
with the very text upon which they place to much
emphasis, it’s almost enough to cause one to ask
just how much of this sort of thing has been
going on for the last 2000 years, and thus
question the validity of much (if not all) of the
Bible, isn’t it?

[quote author=rationalmind

you didn't ans my question properly to my satisfaction. So its very evident men is responsible for the transition from old to new abi?

rationalmind: Now its who made the transition ure asking for. Sorry for ever replying you. Such a waste of precious time.

see shy escape oo..

rationalmind: What has this gotten to do with the present discourse.?

The new testament is basically the beginning of the period of grace which was brought through the death of Jesus. In the old testament, there was no grace. You f.uck up, ure punished.

I still don't see what this has to do with editing. Are you attempting to say Mohammeds bible had only the old testament or it had only the new testament.

Need I remind you, I'm not a christian.

i don't care what you re for you've not explained to me who made the transition from old to new.Thanks

rationalmind: Hehehe, nice cop-out. Good to know ure also running like your brother slye.

Here is it again, PROVIDE US WITH MOHAMMEDS BIBLE AND LETS COMPARE AND CONTRAST or, PROVE WITH VALID REFERENCES THE BIBLE HAS BEEN EDITTED BETWEEN THE 7th CENTURY AND NOW.

Once you can't do that, mohammed had the same bible christians have now and if as italo said, he asked you to believe in the bible, you should be able to explain what you believe in and not ask christians to do it. If on another hand you don't, ure just a silly hypocrite.

Mr rationalmind explain to me why we had both old and new testament. i can bet it you can't find a reason as you'll end up confirming yoursef it was edited

thorpido: There is so much I wish I coud teach you but human reasoning cannot know God and you are at that level of human reasoning because that is all religion can offer.Study this scripture below:

But when He appears,we shall be like Him,for we shall see Him just as He is'(I john 3:2).

i can see you're above human reasoning. Teach to me the doctrines then. ..Thanks in anticipation

rationalmind: Hehehehehe, laugh wan kill me. Muslims never cease to amaze me. On one hand they claim the bible has been edited, on another hand they attempt to use that same edited bible to prove mohammed was mentioned in it. What makes you feel the part that mentioned the comforter has not been edited.

Hehehe, anyway, let me leave your question for our christian brethen. That's if they even bother to dignify you with a response

They won't answer me because there is no answer to give. You pple only shy away from questions. I've asked many questions here concerning Christianity. No one has attempted to ans my questions properly, I'm only getting insults!

John ( 17:21 ) "That they(disciples) all may be one; as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us.. ..." it is clear here that God and Jesus re one, and that the disciples are one in Jesus and God. If Jesus is God because he is in God , why re the disciples not God too as they re like Jesus who is in God ?

thorpido: Hogwash!What you wrote here doen't prove anything.IF Muhammed came after Jesus and says he's the last and seal of everything,what do you expect his doctrine to be?Common sense says his doctrine will make all other doctrines agree with his own.
Do you think he will tell you there's something different somewhere from his own?

The only proof you have is to get the ORIGINAL doctrines of Jesus Christ and let's see if it is different from the bible we have today.There should be an original somewhere,if not you are believing a lie.

My biggest question is why would someone who claims to be the last prophet and the seal of all prophets be unknown by other prophets and never spoken of by them in any holy book?
Please study well before you respond.Don't come and start quoting John 16 to me.Muhammed was not the Comforter!

if you look at my posts I've never used foul language against anyone here

So who is or was the comforter?

They're many controversies labeled on many prophets which re meant to be an example to their pple in the Bible. prophets like Noah, Solomon,Aaron, Lot, Jacob, David. ...many like that
e.g" This were both the daughters of lot with child by their father" ( Gen 19:36 )aw can the Bible label these pple with such untrue accusations!

rationalmind: Can anyone see what I'm seeing?

Muslims are brain dead. Extremely brain dead.

Italo asked you to prove the bible mohammed had is different from the bible he's holding only for you to come and say the bible was compiled 300 years after Jesus, cited some bible references and said the bible has been edited.

Mohammed was born roughly 700 years after Jesus existed. It is highly probable that the same bible you claim has been edited due to compilation after 300 years of Jesus existence was the same bible mohammed had. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest mohammed ever even saw or had access to the "so called original manuscripts".

So bro, italo question stands. Provide him with mohammeds bible and let's compare and contrast. Or prove with valid references that, within the 7th century and now, the bible has been edited and that it was the unedited bible mohammed had.


lol, even your brother slyle saw the task at hand and gently ran away. You could had done the same.

My brother i said no insults!
if you believe we re brain dead. Explain to us the reason why we have old and new testament and from who did the editing came from. if you can't answer that mind your talk of saying someone is brain dead!