₦airaland Forum

Zikkyy: You don start again why force someone to worship other gods? If the man says he is celebrating Christ resurrection, why accuse him of worshiping something else. Abi you saw the man in sango worshipping attire sacrificing a goat to sango?

italo: You are so eager to condemn that you do not even know that we are celebration RESURRECTION, not DEATH.

Anyway, the Bible would be pagan too, since non of the apostles carried it around and it only came into existence hundreds of years after Jesus and the apostles had died.

italo: 1. This idea that if something is not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is a sin... Is it biblical? Is there anywhere the Bible says that anything that is not in the Bible is a sin?

Freksy: Italo, can you recall what happened when Uzzah and his brother Ahio led the wagon carrying the ark of the covenant from their house when David wanted it brought to Jerusalem?
When the bulls pulling the wagon nearly caused an upset, Uzzah reached out and grabbed hold to steady the Ark, for which God struck him dead on the spot.
At first, King David saw nothing wrong with the use of a more advanced technique then (the Wagon) to carry the Ark, rather than using the authorized means - for Kohathite Levites to carry it with the poles on their shoulders as God had directed. God's anger would not have been incurred if he had done the right thing. - Ex 25:13, 14; Nu 7:9. Remember, the bible did not specifically say: "thou shall not use the wagon" or "Uzzah should never prevent the Ark from falling".

Notwithstanding Uzzah's presumably good intentions to prevent the Ark from falling, he was judged as acting in "error." (2Sa 6:7) This was because deliberate disobedience was involved. God had instructed that under no circumstances was the Ark to be touched by unauthorized persons. (Nu 4:15, 19, 20)

What God wanted his worshipers to do concerning the death of his son was stated explicitly in the Bible. Jesus had even demonstrated this with his disciples a night before his death, and commanded as follows: "... this do in remembrance of me" - Luke 22:19.
When a clear-cut instruction is deliberately overstepped, it is a sin. When proper things that needs to be done are deliberately ignored, it is a sin. "So whoever knows what is good to do and does not do it is guilty of sin. - James 4:17 NET.

Image123: BTW, on Gosh's long division of Hebrew 7, all he ended up saying is that the priesthood is no longer required to be of Levi origin. That's why Jesus can be High Priest from the tribe of Judah. That's why gentiles can claim priesthood under the new covenant.

Image123: There is no such verses

truthislight: the bible is written in such a way that in a particular vers, there is always another PART of same bible that that shade more light into it that we dont have to resort to our own views that is off the scriptures.

The truth is, in the "scripture interprete scripture", we look in further into the bible and not a human word.

"Do not go beyond what is written". 1cor 4:6
*edited*

Kay 17: Your wild usage covers Judaism, Mormonism (non Christian obviously), Hinduism, ultraextreme Christian sects (Rastaferianism), and any religious sect that has a piece of paper with the most minimal religious instructions.

If I was to follow your madness, there is nothing other than language barrier that stops you from referring to the Quran as the Muslim Bible!

dorox: It appears I.chuka has chosen to dishonourably cut and run in the face of overwhelming scriptural evidence debunking his extreme puritanical view on wine instead of thanking everyone that helped in showing him his error the way a decent and humble person would.

Goshen360: ^ ^ ^ Let's even say that was instructed to Timothy....because of his stomach ailment. We have many scriptures that says, not given to excess\much wine. 1 Timothy 3:8, Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:3. They all says....not drunkenness & excess wine. To say 'not at all' is to expand the written word. If you can't handle that, then abstain but not for them to tell those who can drink a little that it is wrong.

dorox: Jesus said of himself that he ate and he drank in contrast with John that neither ate nor drank. This wasn't some random statement about him by someone else.

dorox: In Matt.11:18,19 There Jesus said he ate and drank while john did neither. You might ask that if john did not eat and drink, did he starve and go thirsty? My answer to that will show that Jesus indeed took alcohol.
When we eat food, especially a well made food we derive pleasure from it as well as nourishment for our body. Jesus had both for we are told in the bible that he feasted regularly with friends and attended wedding ceremonies where meals are served. While john ate only to satisfy his nutritional needs and not for the pleasure of eating hence his feeding on locust.
John was instructed before birth not to take wine or strong drink. Luke.1:15 He did not drink for the pleasure of drinking, hence no alcohol but surely he must have had water and honey to nourish his body. While Jesus said that he drank what John was told not to drink (wine or strong drink) and it was for that reason some people falsely accused him of being a drunkard

Pastor Kun: This is your own ill logic and found nowhere in scripture, i hope you know it is a grievous sin to add to or subtract from the word of God.

truthislight: (Numbers 28:7).
"And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: pour in the holy place the drink offering of intoxicating liquor (strong wine) to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering." (Numbers 28:7).

Bidam: e bi lyk say your liquor cabinet dey full tonite...

FOLYKAZE: Ladies and Gentlemen, we have come to the end of this survival match-wrestlemania XIII


My big kudos for those that have waited patiently till this present time. It not a easy stuff

-my big thank to the seun for making this place avenue for this great slam
- also I wont forget the moderators, you guys did a great job for making the battle entertaining


¤ This goes also the TeamGoshen for their support for their boss. It not a easy job though. The insult, name calling (false prophet, devil, anti-christ, bla bla) is like a blow to Obadiah777.

¤ I wont forget my man Calculus12, for all you've done in this match. You are there when nobody was around. A good friend is know only when you in trouble. You stand firmly with Goshen360 soldiers when you think you needed most. My salute



Thanks to Goshen360 for bringing this up for the second time. Man, na strong man dey challenge back after falling in the past. You did a great job


Obadiah777, you are one man mopo. Where you are in this bible knowledge, im sure this sheeps of pastors cant reach there. You really tried. I love those skills you got up there : the block, upper cut, lower cut, sidehook, spinning,..... It shows how great and firm you stand in bible knowledge.



Hun hun


Judging from my own observation, speaking of truth and reality. Obadiah777 won the battle. And my brother Goshen360 is twice beating. Just wish him best of luck, maybe he can still recover, and challenge next time.



I remember back then when I was a christian. This days, im Atheist. So dont judge me for that. Thats my personal conviction. I love this kind of bible knowledge battle. It open lot for people on the fence. And I will look forward for more of this.


Gentleman and ladies, light out. Let the DJ start the music


@ Obadiah777, you sabi Azonto huh? Bruv, Brah or wetin you dey call am self? #respect

nite

truthislight: @Obediah777
So, from the above, it is not about you guys quoting the bible, but he has problems with with "christianity" as a religion.

Whatever you say to him, is a wested effort.

His mission if well served here on NL is to create as much confussion as possible on the part/way called "christianity

obadiah777: ThanksMY EXPLANATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY THE RELIGION IS MAN MADE.

2-YES ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE SATAN

3-ALL OTHER PERSONIFICATIONS OF SATAN IN THE BIBLE FOR EXAMPLE THE RED DRAGON IS THE GRECO-ROMAN EMPIRE. THEY ARE EMPIRES OR PEOPLE

4-JOHN 8 VS 44 IS REFERING TO CAIN WHO WAS A MURDERER AND LIAR FROM THE BEGINNING. DEVIL SIMPLY MEANS 'LIAR'.

5-THE DEVIL AND DRAGON IN REVELATION 20 IS THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Vickhov: I guess u've an axe to grind with Deeper life.Even d tithe u're busy castigating deeper life about,dey aint so obsessed about tithe collection.If dere is any need dat arise in d church,dey inform their members about it and out of their freewill volition dey can provide for it.I'm 100% sure dat dere's no deeper life church dat will lay curse on its member because of tithes or offerings.There are couple of churches out there dat collects freewill offering,sowing of seed,tithes etc in a service but deeper life churches dont but yet you chose to pick on dem.If there's any tin to castigate deeperlife about,it shud b abt d preaching of holiness which am very sure is lacking in ur life.From d look of tins u sound like an atheist because even d muslims blive there is hell fire so i dont understnd where u got ur false doctrine and apostasy from..I pray God changes ur heart before its too late

Ubenedictus: ignatius of (1st/2nd century)

Pastor Kun: The hypocrite avoids responding to posts like this as his lies have been clearly exposed and there is no way he can dribble round it without exposing himself as a charlatan.

@Olaadegbu
If you are really a christian as you claim to be then you should recant your teachings and apologise those you have deceived with your fables.

chukwudi44: My man will you sharaap.Can't you see roles played by catholics like Jerome,athanasius,Augustine e.t.c. to give us the bible.

Ubenedictus: what?? Did you just do that?? You simply misapplied d text. That text doesnt say that d corithians should only obey what he wrote to them. Infact if you can prove that it said so that means you have proven that the bible contradicts itself.

Goshen360: C. The rule is this: "Always accept the literal meaning of the words of the passage unless there is strong evidence to do otherwise." As stated earlier, "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

We are very fortunate to live in this age. Excellent Bible helps are available to help us find the original meaning of a word. Word study books such as Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words enables anyone to research a word without knowing the language and find its original meaning.

D. Syntax. Important to arriving at the correct meaning of a word is the study of syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in is grammatical setting. It deals with understanding the word's grammatical use as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or part of speech. It also seeks to decide the tense, mood, voice, and case of a word.

E. When God used a particular word He did so to convey a particular meaning. You cannot ignore the customary and grammatical meaning of a word, in its historical setting and honestly claim to arrive at an interpretation of the passage that God intended. To ignore this principle of sound Biblical interpretation is to destroy the very Word of God itself. God did not give us a subjective and confusing method of understanding His Word. God chose each and every word for its precise meaning and recorded it and reserved it so there would be no confusion.

Goshen360: B. Often the Bible does use figurative speech. The art or skill of an interpreter, using the proper rules of interpretation combined with good biblical reasoning can easily understand the meaning. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Here the time period is clearly figurative. Note that the verse says one day "is as" a thousand years. It does not say one day "is" exactly one thousand years. It would be wrong to take this figurative statement as meaning absolutely that a day in heaven is one thousand years. It would also be wrong to use this verse to say that a when the word day is used in Scripture it means one thousand years. Note that here the Bible is interpreting the Bible.

1. In the Bible, when a verse is not to be interpreted literally it is clearly indicated. By examining the passage we know that Peter in 2 Peter 3:8, used a simile. A simile is figure of speech in which one thing is liken to another. Also, the context of this verse presents further evidence that supports this view. Peter is addressing scoffers who rejected the truth that Christ would return to earth.

2. Many have tried to use this verse to fix the long ages of evolution into the Genesis account of Creation. They believe that this verse allows for great latitude in interpreting the word "day" in Genesis 1 and 2. But if we apply sound rules of interpreting Scripture to the passages in Genesis it too shows that this is an erroneous interpretation.

3. The word for "Day" is the Hebrew word, "yom" It can mean the followings:

(1) The period of light (contrasted from the period of darkness).
(2) A twenty four hour period.
(3) A general vague "time".
(4) A point in time.
(5) A year.

4. Some want to believe the "days of creation" were long periods of time, which would support evolution. They would suggest the meaning of the word "yom" is "long ages" They point to verses such as Psalm 102:2, which use the word in a general sense. "Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble..." This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or any length of time of trouble. However, to understand what the word means you must look at the word in all the contexts it is used. Look at verses such as Gen. 7:11, 27:45; Ex. 20:10; Lev. 22:277; Num. 7:24, 30, 36, 40, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 77-78; Psa. 88:1, 139:12, Eccl. 8:16. These verses illustrate an unfailing principle found in every use of the word, "yom" Whenever "yom" is modified by a number\figure, or whenever "yom" is used in conjunction with the idea of day and night, or light and darkness, it ALWAYS mean a normal twenty four hour day.

5. The use of a number with the word "yom" is conclusive evidence that the "Days of Creation" were twenty four hour periods of time. The Bible says, ". . .the evening and the morning were the first day". The use of the words, evening, morning and first, limits the meaning of the word "day" to a twenty four hour period of time. That is exactly what it says. To interpret the time period which is stated here as meaning anything but a twenty four hour period is a gross error in interpreting what the writer meant.

6. Further evidence is found in Exodus 20:11, which supports this conclusion that these days in Genesis 1, are twenty four hour period of time. Note the statement of Moses, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This is as clear a statement of the time frame of Creation as can be had. Moses in connecting the six day Creation with instructions concerning the Sabbath day is conclusive evidence that the Creation was accomplished in six literal twenty four hours periods.

7. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8, is assuring believers that God will keep his promises to us. It is pointing out that God is not confined to time as we know it. The use of the phrase "a thousand years is as but a day with the Lord" is understood as being a metaphorical reference to the fact that God is not limited by time. What we might perceive as a delay in time is within the structure of God's plan for the world.

8. If you interpret 2 Peter 3:8, literally, then you would still have only seven thousand years for God to complete the Creation. You would still not have the billions of years the evolutionist insists it took to create the world and life as we know it. In any case you can not honestly use this passage as a precedent to interpret the "days" of Genesis 1, as being anything other than a twenty four hour period of time.

Ubenedictus: after a long post of fending off and closing your eye to d reality you finally killed it.
Where does the Nt say d bolden?

striktlymi: Good morning truthislight,

I read through your comments but decided against responding cause not many people can handle seemingly 'scandalous' things like I can. There are a lot of unsatisfactory answers but I will let it pass for the sake of the 'little ones'.


Thanks for attempting to provide answers.

italo: There are homosexuals and pedophiles in the general society among those who are not celibate.

Celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia and homosexuality.

Jesus and Paul were celibate, but were They homosexuals and pedophiles?

There are many Catholic Priests like them.

ighoosagie: I want to know why u guys closed my thread on "excellent GOD and d foolish things He had said". Is it that u guys re far from understanding or Wat, I want to know what u guys think is wrong with it, In that thread I was trying to explan that d words of God sound foolish to men but wen its been obeyed it becomes a solution. Pls I wan whosoever that close that thread should pls open it, or give me comprehensive reasons why it was closed, if not it may lead to my exit frm this forum.

striktlymi: The printing press was invented in about 1450 and before then duplicating a write-up was an uphill task for anyone. It is known that not many copies of any writing before then was made and it follows that any write-up made before then could only be seen by a few

striktlymi: persons...while the content would be related to the vast majority via word of mouth hence the NT was not readily available.

striktlymi: Another angle to this would be that the bible as put together was not available to anyone, including the apostles...what they had then was the old testament and pockets of writings here and there...

striktlymi: So in this light, how can Christians determine the truth from when there was nothing like the NT then?

striktlymi: First of, I believe the above but how can you tell that what was written above was actually God's word?

striktlymi: Is it because Paul said it? Don't you think that I can as well write something and claim that it is God's word?

striktlymi: Another question would be that there are some teachings of Paul that go against the teachings of the old testament...how do we then reconcile this with the fact that every bit of scripture is inspired?

striktlymi: The question really is: If the various writings were not available readily to everyone, what then do believers rely on?

striktlymi: Luke was not an apostle but he wrote a Gospel...who then determines whether we are to accept his Gospel as inspired?

striktlymi: Who did the Apostles hand over to before they died?

striktlymi: Did the teaching ministry die with them?

striktlymi: I don't quite understand the above!

striktlymi: Should I take it that you mean after the Apostles there was no successor and the teaching ministry died?

striktlymi: They were all Jews but are you saying that God left the community to themselves without leaders and teachers after the death of the Apostles?

striktlymi: Should I take it that you mean God can only select Jews as Apostles?

striktlymi: When Christ said he will be with his Church till the end of time, was he actually saying that he will be with them till the last Apostle died?

striktlymi: Is there any where in sacred scriptures where it is said that we are to follow what the Apostles wrote?

striktlymi: The question again is: how do we know that Paul was saying the correct thing? Do we believe him just because he said it? Was there a reference point for his teaching e.g the old testament?

striktlymi: If everyone is a follower of Christ why then do you say we should follow the Apostles?

striktlymi: Doesn't this sound like the Apostles are now taking the place of Christ?

striktlymi: Correct me if I am wrong but is the old testament not supposed to be the "layed foundation"?

striktlymi: It seems to me that all the Apostles did was teach new things...is this wrong?

striktlymi: Are you sure this is what God intended or its just your personal view point?

striktlymi: We know very well that there are a number of issues today which Sacred scriptures is silent about and believers today are confused on whether or not they are sinful...are we now saying that God forgot to make provisions for some teachers to guide us through these times?

striktlymi: God always had people to teach in the old, the new and now do you think he has decided to stop this trend and live every man to himself?

striktlymi: If indeed I know that it is inspired then how do I know considering that when they said scriptures is inspired the reference point then was the old testament and not the new.

striktlymi: we know that Judas was replaced and Paul was added to the list of the Apostles; are we now saying that as the Apostles died one after the other, they forgot to replace those who died like Judas was replaced?