(September 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm)John V Wrote: If you claim that all the others have analogues to mine, it's certainly your job to show that. You're apparently unable to do so.

Truth is, you've already been shown a few in this thread; you claim that willingness to take injury for a belief is evidence for it, and you've been shown suicide bombers from other religions, just off the top of my head.

Quote:You're compounding the dishonesty. What do you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record"?

Precisely what I said; the evidence we find in genetics and the fossil record uniformly supports evolutionary theory. Everything fits into the correct stratographic layer pretty much where it should, so much so that scientists can and have made predictions based on this and found transitional fossils in exactly the layer they thought they would. Our genetic evidence is entirely concordant with evolution, including our ability to map the lineage of a number of species, and every objection raised by intelligent design or creationism has been summarily struck down.

What more do you want?

Quote:I'm waiting for you to clarify your statement, as I suspect if I go first you'll move the goalposts, as you're already attempting by softening to the ambiguous "disagree with evolution" already.

Clarified. I really would be interested in examining any counter-evidence you think you might have, by the way. That wasn't combative sarcasm or anything.

Quote:I think there are a number of definitions, some broader and some narrower, and the context indicates the one which is (or should be) being used. While simple change in allele frequency is one definition of evolution, discussions of evolution on atheist sites generally go well beyond that to include common descent.

Even if I did go to including common descent (something I'm in no way obligated to do, incidentally) how would any of those definitions exclude artificial selection as a mechanism?

Quote:Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

Hmm, that really is an interesting question. A bit of cursory research shows a concept called neoteny, plus a comparable phenomenon occurring in artificially selected silver foxes. I'll keep looking into it, but this is exactly the reason I like talking about this subject.

Quote:Sure - in fact, I'll use another page from your source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml
Note that artificial selection isn't listed as a mechanism of evolution. Also note that they use the more restrictive definition of evolution, as I did above: "Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors."

You'd rather debate definitions again, a sure sign that you've lost a grip on your position. If I was willing to play that game, which I'm generally not, I'd point out to you that Charles Darwin himself used artificial selection as a springboard for discussing and supporting his ideas of natural selection in "On the Origin of Species." And that Berkeley seems to use the term interchangeably, and considers it evidence for evolution anyway.

But I'd rather debate the issue, and I'm rather interested in why you think this: evolution concerns changes in organisms over generations. Why do you think human selection of breeding partners somehow invalidates that process?

Not "what dictionaries can you find that might support you," but "why do you think this is so?"

(September 23, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: Did you copy this, did you research these things, are you just listening to others, this is called dishonest, are you being dishonest, I think so, you haven't spoken from your knowledge of scripture. Please show us your honesty and take a few of those and show us what you found in scriptures, can we trust you to do this?


GC

Lv72 Wrote:Here is one

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

[Editor's note: Some readers have raised an objection to this alleged contradiction. They point out that PSA 145:20 states that The Lord keeps all who love Him, but that He will destroy the wicked. In other words, some see no contradiction between "The Lord is good to all" and JER 13:14. Others contend, however, that even if the Lord destroys the wicked he could do so with compassion, pity, and mercy. Further, there are biblical examples that indicate that the Lord is not necessarily "good" or merciful--even to those who are not wicked. One such example is Job. As one reader points out, "If Psalm 145:9 was not a contradiction of Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14, it would read something like this: "The LORD is good to all, except the wicked: and his tender mercies are over all his works, except when He is punishing the wicked." In any case, the idea that the Lord is good and merciful is contradicted by countless examples in the Bible where God orders the destruction of infants, personally kills David's infant child, etc.]

You are confusing God's love with His judgement of sin, God loves everyone and He hates the sin of everyone, no one is immune from God's judgement on sin, even those who are saved can find themselves under God's discipline here on earth.

Lv72 Wrote:War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Exactly why can't God be both, Satan brought war to heaven and God defeated him, bring peace to heaven. God freed His people from Egypt, then Pharaoh tried to attack His people and God protected them by destroying Pharaoh's chariots and riders, bringing peace to His people.
Satan tempted Adam and Eve bringing sin and unrest into the world, through Christ God defeats sin and death, bringing peace to those who desires God's grace.

Lv72 Wrote:Who is the father of Joseph
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, thus Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's and Jacob was his father. Luke gives prominence to women in his gospel, it thus is why he used Mary's genealogy and during those times it would have been natural for Joseph's father-in-law to call him son.

Lv72 Wrote:Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

All these women went to the tomb together, some were mentioned in each gospel, there could have been more who were not mentioned.

Lv72 Wrote:Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

You should have backed up one verse, oh that's right you're a copier not one who studies, a parrot for others bad work, do you feel used, you should.
John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.
Jesus in verse 30 did not say He and the Father are equal, He is saying they are in agreement with each other, on the same page. In verse 29 Jesus says the Father is greater than all. I know you did not realize that Christ's powers came from the Father while He was on earth, all the miracles that Jesus did here came from the Father's power not His. Christ laid down His powers and royalty when he came as a man to serve man.
Seems to me the verses in John 10 verify the verses in John 14.

Lv72 Wrote:Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

I've explained this several times, you need to pay attention to what others say, it get's trying going over the same thing time after time.
The 1st chapter of Genesis is a chronological account of creation, the 2nd chapter is an little more detailed account of creation and it was not necessary to give the chronological summary, because it was in the previous chapter.

Lv72 Wrote:How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

This is very likely a copy error and we may never know how many stalls there were, and does it really matter, you're getting petty. The horseman in the verses you copied are the same, why are you asking a question against yourself. There is another explanation for the discrepancy, the stalls in 2nd Chronicles could actually mean barns.

Lv72 Wrote:Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

It is folly to misuse wisdom as 1st Corinthians says, again as a copier you can never understand scripture because you parrot the foolish. You should have read verses 18-25 and the wisdom is earthly or man's wisdom and the discernment is man's understanding, these are what God destroys, the spiritually wise will seek after Christ. Verse 20 was meant for you, it describes you completely.
Ecclesiastes is about the wisdom God gave Solomon, and Solomon is explaining the great burden that wisdom can bring, especially if one ignores the wisdom and practices folly. Solomon is saying to much of a good thing is not always as it might seem.
Proverbs is also Solomon's works and he is saying Godly wisdom is good for a man and with God's wisdom comes God's discernment.

Lv72 Wrote:Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Do you have any idea what you have copied from Acts 2:30, do you even realize who the prophet is, I'm sure whoever gave you that verse didn't and as his parrot neither do you. You should have read the verses that preceded v. 30, you might have gained insight to the meaning of the verse.
The prophet is King David and the fruit of his loins were the descendants of David down through time until they came to Mary and the Holy Spirit conceived in her a child called Christ. The two verses are in total agreement with each other.

Lv72 Wrote:The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Why are you comparing laws given to the Israelites in Deuteronomy to the punishment of Babylon and it's king whom God compares to the fallen Lucifer. Your comparing mud to rocks, surely you can see how this fails or maybe a copier is blind to such sensible things.

Lv72 Wrote:Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

You have been deceived as to how a rabbit chews the cud. Then a copier doesn't know how to research the subject at hand. Let's see if you can understand this, "dung" is digested waste of little or no use to the animal that passed it. The cud passed by a rabbit is not digested, it does contain chemicals to aid in the process when the rabbit chews the cud that was passed through. Of coarse you will want to argue the point of the word translated "cud." In reality when the KJV was first translated they did not know the process of the rabbits dietary process, so of coarse the Israelites had no idea either, this being so, they would naturally use the same word for all animals who chewed the cud.

Lv72 Wrote:Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The KJV verses of 1:20-21 do not explain the creation of the birds and creatures of the seas as the more modern translations such as the NASV and others I referred to, these more resent translations such as the NASV do not indicate the birds were created from water nor from the ground. You have to go to Genesis 2:19 to find the birds were created from the earth, like I said earlier a little more detail comes from chapter 2.

LV72 Wrote:Odd genetics

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Did you read the story of Joseph's deal with Laban and how Laban tried to use deception to control Joseph, of coarse not a copier just prints what's set before him and never tries to reason what is happening around the verse picked out of an entire story. As I continue to answer these verses it's becoming quite clear you know nothing about the scriptures. Laban's deception did not go unnoticed by God or Joseph, Joseph had tended Laban's flocks for years and he knew that Laban had only left the white sheep and goat and so did God. God the "Creator" made sure that these white sheep and goats bore healthy animals with spots and stripes for Joseph's flocks and Laban wound up with the weaker white ones.

Lv72 Wrote:The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Do you really believe the creator of the earth needed to be shown the earth He created, the glory within each nation was given to them by God, so Christ would have known all this. The verse from Matthew shows how
stupid Satan was in offering Christ something He made. The verse in Isaiah does not mean the people of the time believed the earth was flat, they could see the spherical character of the earth from high places around the seas and oceans, there was no Hebrew word for sphere and the people, unlike you, understood that circle of the earth meant it was round like a ball.

Lv72 Wrote:Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

A snake takes dust into it's mouth all the time as it senses the environment around it, or as it eats it's pray but, we're not talking about snakes. What we are talking about is one specific animal that God cursed, so you can just forget about the snakes.

Lv72 Wrote:Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Job 26:7 is saying nothing more than the north is the top of the world, same as most of us see it today.
Job 38:4 I guess you struggle with metaphors don't you, I bet you believe when a sailor says his ship plows through the water, he meant a garden was going to be planted.
Job 26:11 Same as above.

Lv72 Wrote:The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

How's this for the completion of the hydrological cycle.
Amos 5:8 It is the LORD who created the stars, the Pleiades and Orion. He turns darkness into morning and day into night. He draws up water from the oceans and pours it down as rain on the land[/quote]. The LORD is His name!
This comes before science discovered the hydro cycle.

Lv72 Wrote:JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle

You really do have trouble with metaphors, why do you think God explained this as storehouses, if He had told Job how snow and hail was really formed Job would not have understood. It's easy for us we have the science of how this occurs.

Lv72 Wrote:Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

A I have said before Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological order of creation. By the way the land animals were created on day six, if you're going to copy at least do it right. Elohim is the correct name for the Creator, why, because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in the 6 days of creation, simple really. God was pleased, why shouldn't He be pleased everything was perfect. God rested on the seventh day to set an example for man that rest is a necessary function of life, it has both physical and mental benefits.

Lv72 Wrote:The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

As before this is not a chronological order and was not intended to be it gives some detail to creation, at least the detail God wanted to give us. Do you have any idea who Yahweh is?

Lv72 Wrote:How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."

So, does it matter, were you there when the earth was created?

Lv72 Wrote:#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

What do you mean God fixed things up as He went, I would think that an omnipotent God could create as He desires, wouldn't you? God forgot nothing He gave Adam a choice and he found all the animals lacking, bet he wished he had chosen different when Eve messed things up.

Lv72 Wrote:How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple.

God's creation was perfect right down to the free will He gave man, man screwed up creation by bringing sin into creation through their disobedience. Your mind must be numb not to be able to see such a simple thing. God had to give His Son as a sacrifice for man's disobedience that came through free will.

Lv72 Wrote:(funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
Moses' personality

NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Moses was telling the warriors they were not following what God asked of them, Moses did not give this command.
Numbers 31:1-3 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people." So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD's vengeance on Midian. Copy, copy, copy why don't you read scripture and learn things for yourself, it's better than being a parrot for another. Something else about Moses, his being meek meant he was seen as having patience and being long suffering, not as you would have him be, weak and timid. Read the scriptures they never portray Moses in that light.

Lv72 Wrote:Righteous live?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Since when does flourish and perish necessarily mean the same thing. The palm tree grows strong and straight and produces fruit, so do the righteous. No one evil or righteous are promised a long prosperous life. Do I really need to be explaining such simple things, I guess that copiers just don't get life, they just parrot life.

Lv72 Wrote:ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Since there was no heading for this I presume you think there's a contradiction here. Nope, the priest never reclaimed that money and the money purchased the field.

Lv72 Wrote:Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

These are two different sermons and have been recognized as such for a long time. The sermon on the mount was the first teaching and He was teaching His disciples. Matthew was chosen after this teaching event, Matthew 9:9 describes when Christ chose Matthew to be a follower of Christ, but not yet one of the twelve.
In Luke's account Christ is coming down off a mountain after choosing His twelve from all those men who were following Him, then Christ began to teach on the plain where a great multitude of people had gathered and the twelve were present. These details separate the two teaching events as being at different places and times. The teachings had similarities, but any good teacher would continue to teach some of the same things over and over.

Lv72 Wrote:Jesus' last words

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

I really do not see how this could be of any real importance even if it were true. However there is no contradiction, in Luke and John the words are recorded differently, yet they have the very same meaning. In Matthew's account it says, He cried again with a loud voice, it doesn't clarify what Christ said, what makes you think it's different than what Luke and John recorded.

Lv72 Wrote:Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

There is a difference here but, not a contradiction as you would point out. David had three choices famine, to flee or plague, David did not choose the famine, he did not want to fall into human hands, so the three days of plague were brought upon Israel. Now about the difference in the years of famine that never happened, 2nd Samuel is recorded in Hebrew and 1st Chronicles is recorded in Greek, so a difference occurred during translation, why we do not know but, in no way does it change the scriptures or the truth of them.

Lv72 Wrote:Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Hebrew writers do not always distinguish between primary and secondary causes, so if God allowed Satan to tempt David, to them it's as if God did it as in 2nd Samuel. The two accounts were written about 500 years apart.
If God had told David to number Israel He would have had no reason to be angry with David showing his vanity and pride. However if Satan tempted David and David fell to the temptation then God had a reason to punish David. David also admitted he sinned because of his pride and Scripture tells us God does not tempt man to sin. So the way the Hebrews wrote can explain what seems to be a contradiction.

Lv72 Wrote:The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

First of all Muslims see Jesus as a man who was called by God as a prophet, not as the Son of God.
As I explained earlier the two genealogies are separate, one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. Mary's father would refer to Joseph as his son and because of the male dominated times a married woman's genealogy would be referred through her husband.

LV72 Wrote:God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Genesis 32:30 Comes after Jacob had wrestled with God in human form, this is Christ of coarse, God revealed in human form. Jacob knew that God could have taken him out at any time, but instead touched his hip and gave him a limp.
In Genesis chapter 18 three men came to Abraham and as we are told one of them is God in human form, this being Christ, so not only Jacob but also Abraham saw God. As you have pointed out in the verses about Moses in Exodus, God told Moses he could not look upon His face without dying, God allowed Moses to see His backside to satisfy Moses curiosity.
In Exodus 33:11 God speaks directly to Moses and does not send His message to Moses through others and it also shows the relationship between God and Moses and foretells the relationship man will have with God after Christ. It does not mean Moses saw God's face. Of coarse since all you do is copy and never investigate things for yourself you do not know these things. Parroting others only adds to your lack of knowledge.

Lv72 Wrote:CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

If you had not been someone's parrot and actually read the story of the linen belt you would have understood what verse 14 in Jeremiah 13 meant. God was allowing the pride the people of Israel had developed about themselves to become conflict between even parent and child. He did this to punish this arrogant and prideful nation, because they were taking credit for God's work that prospered them.
The destruction of Amalek is His judgement upon Amalek, God could have destroyed them as He did Sodom and Gomorrah, yet He delayed there punishment. The NT verses you gave show God's love and mercy. what you have done is try to compare two of God's attributes against each other, judgement and punishment against God's merciful love, your comparing apples to oranges, see what happens when you do not gather your own information.

Lv72 Wrote:Tempts?

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

Okay Mr. Parrot, the word tempt used in Genesis 22:1 in Hebrew is nacah, which is better translated as test, and test is used in all the Bible translations I have, which is 4, NIV, NASV, NLT, and ESV
all considered as extremely good translations. God does not tempt man to sin.

Lv72 Wrote:Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

He fell from the tree he hung himself on, he would of had to hang for a few days before he would have exploded on contact with the ground.

Lv72 Wrote:Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)

The KJV sometimes reads a little confusing, the more modern versions state that Jesus is the only One to descend from heaven and then return. Elijah was born from a man and woman, making him totally human and so not from heaven.

Lv72 Wrote:What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30

What does it matter, Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed, if a cock crows once, twice or twenty times the cock crowed.

Lv72 Wrote:How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Again does it matter how many times the cock crowed, Peter denied Jesus three times and then the cock crowed and it probably crowed many more times that morning. None of my roosters just crowed once or twice to announce the coming of the morning.

Lv72 Wrote:How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

As I explained earlier in these questions, these are two different teaching opportunities, one on the mount and one on the plain. Different places and different times.

Lv72 Wrote:Does every man sin?

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1st John 3:9 is only understood by reading verse 8. John would have been foolish to say no man sins after spending so much time with Christ, and having the knowledge of the OT scriptures you supplied. John is saying that one born again, born of God, will not continually sin as they did before they were saved, he's not even saying Christians want willfully sin at times. He is saying those who are saved will try and avoid sinful behavior and love and live God's law. But when you just copy verses from others who do not understand, or do not care to understand, so they can mislead others, well you get your understanding of scripture. And what understanding would that be, Satan's of coarse, go read verse 8.

Lv72 Wrote:Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Judas purchased the field, not directly, but it was the money he was paid that purchased the field. Remember that I explained how Jewish writers do not always care about the primary and secondary cause of an event. This is that practice here also in two ways, first the priest purchased the field, with money they did not reclaim ie. Judas payment. Second Judas indirectly purchased the field with the payment he received from the priest. So the writers did not care who had the money or who actually purchased the field, the money was forever Judas' money and that being so makes the purchase Judas' purchase.

Lv72 Wrote:Who prophesied the potter's field?

MAT 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

One reason Jeremiah was mentioned in Matthew's writing could be a later translation error. Regardless the prophecy that was 500 years old was fulfilled. There was more to the prophecy but I'm sure you're not interested, since you only like to copy others work.

Lv72 Wrote:Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I explained this just a couple weeks ago, you should of payed attention, besides I doubt you could possibly understand.

Lv72 Wrote:How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Again the three versions I am using give the name Merab and not Michal. This is why, 1st Samuel 18:17-21 tells us that Saul wanted David to marry Merab, but David made an excuse not to marry her. So Saul gave Merab to Adriel of Meholah not Michal. Michal had fallen in love with David and he was delighted, so Saul gave her to David to marry and she became David's wife. Now you need to back up to in 2nd Samuel 6:17 to find more evidence about Michal, she was punished by God for cursing David's worship of God. The punishment was she would never have any children and Michal and David never had any children. Now that we have established it was Merab's sons in 2nd Samuel 21:8, we also have more evidence, David never gave up five of his sons to the Gibeonites to be killed.
Again you copy and parrot others who have no idea what they are talking about, guess who looks foolish, do a little research and find the truth.

Lv72 Wrote:How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD?

2nd Kings has the age correct, Jehoiachin was married when he took the throne, he actually had more than one wife at the time.
2nd Chronicles, some older manuscripts say he was eight and some say eighteen, so a translation error occurred at some point, it has been corrected in the versions I use.

Lv72 Wrote:Marriage?

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

If you're going to ask a question you should be very clear as to what you're asking, marriage?, does not ask anything and I do not read minds so how am I to answer? Another thing, you need to know what you're talking about, you said, "whole book," well the whole book of 1st Corinthians does not address marriage nor does it contain 40 chapters. However because I do know this book I knew it wasn't 40 chapters long and figured you were talking about chapter 7. Now, chapter 7 is not all about marriage either, if you were something other than a copier you would have realized the error you made, foolishness abounds with you.
If the question was about to marry or not, a simple read would have answered your question and I would not have to write all this. But, instead you would rather copy and parrot, when you would be much better off reading and learning. You see you've trusted an untrustworthy source and fallen flat on your face, how does it fill, not good I would suspect, I've been there but I have learned better.

Lv72 Wrote:Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Come on, you mean you can't understand this, why of coarse not, you depend on others to make the mistakes and then you post them like a good little copier. If you had look to more modern translations you would have found that the word "heard" in Acts 22:9 actually translates to understand. More time with the language has revealed a truer understanding of how to translate the language.

Lv72 Wrote:Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

What are you even trying to ask here, do you even understand, you copy two verses and the name of Jesus, date nor time appear in the verses. Someone is having a good laugh at your expense.
John 1:35 is not about the day after Jesus baptism, it is a time when John was baptizing others and saw Jesus, exclaiming He was the Messiah. Even John 1:29-34 is not about Jesus baptism, again John explained what he saw at Jesus baptism sometime earlier in his ministry. Only the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke describe the baptism of Jesus. You should really be bothered and read scripture, it would be time well spent, if for no other reason than to keep yourself from looking foolish.

Lv72 Wrote:(various traipsings)
How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The gospels all agree on the number being 11 disciples, why Paul said the Twelve I do not know, I'll have to research the translation in 1st Corinthians 15:5 to find out, I do not have that material on hand. This is just a guess, but Paul could have said "the twelve" in reference to the others as a group.

Lv72 Wrote:Judging

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

Again you have just copied something others have no understanding about, the verses of 1st Corinthians 2:10-15 reveal what I've been saying about those who are of this world ie. Unbelievers can not understand the spiritual revelations of God through the Holy Spirit. If you will go read these verses you will see that verses 15 means that a Christian can discern (make judgments) about all spiritual things. The unbeliever has no right to question (judge) what he knows because these things about God were revealed by the Holy Spirit of God.

Lv72 Wrote:Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

This argument has be done to death and it's a dead argument, but for you I'll explain.
Matthew 5:16 means to do things humbly in a Christian manner and through Christian love, do those things that help people in need without bragging or expecting a reward.
Matthew 6:3-4 means to do things for others without explanation to others, when you see someone in need help out, you do not have to wait on others. God will know what you have done and that is enough. These two verses are not in contradiction and are tied to each other through the way Christians should treat those in need.

Lv72 Wrote:For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Your lack of understanding is amazing even when the verses are right there in front of you, copying and not reading what you copy would be my guess.
In Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 Jesus is speaking of nonbelievers who are not against Christianity, He say's do not upset those who are not giving you trouble and they will cause you no trouble.
Matthew 12:30 is about the believer who hinders the progress of the spread of the Gospel of Christ.

Lv72 Wrote:Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Angels can't you read what you copy, the real question here is what didn't they see, Jesus in the tomb.

Lv72 Wrote:God change?

MAL 3:6
JAS 1:17
1SA 15:29
JON 3:10

Is there a reason you are having trouble asking the questions that make some kinda' sense, bet I know the less detail the more wiggle room you all have to get out of a situation.
Okay, I think I got this figured out, let's see, you gave me three verses that states God is unchanging, then one where God relents in compassion on the destruction of a city, in essence changes His mind. So you want to know does God change, let's look at it this way when you change your mind about something, do you change from who you are to someone else. Didn't think so, so why do you want to apply that kind of terrible reasoning to God.

Lv72 Wrote:Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

ZEC 11:11-13 (Note: There is nothing in Jeremiah remotely like this.)

Why are you asking this a second time, do you not even pay close enough attention to what you copy to see you're repeating yourself.

Lv72 Wrote:Whose sepulchers

ACT 7:16
GEN 23:17,18

Why can't you define the questions, or is this the way you found the questions, lacking in detail if so why would you trust the source, oh that's right wiggle room.
I can't find the answer to this at this time will continue to research.

Lv72 Wrote:When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

(See also 1TH 4:15-18)

All the translation versions I use footnote the word generation as also meaning, race or nation. Jesus did not say He would return in their lifetime, what He promised is the nation of Israel would still exist when He returned. Like I said earlier Israel is the only nation to have been dissolved for 2000 years and then restored, never in the history of man has this happened, this was a prophecy over 2000 years old.

Lv72 Wrote:Solomon's overseers

1KI 9:23 550
2CH 8:10 250

I found no information in my sources, and I take it that they see no importance in this and I would agree. It's probably a scribe error, but really do not know.

Lv72 Wrote:The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom

2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

Maacah is found in most Greek and Syriac versions and the Hebrew reads Micaiach which is a variant spelling of Maacah. The same as Abijah it has variant spelling 'Abijam' as found in 1st Kings 15:1. In 1st kings 15:2 Absalom is called by a variant 'Abishalom' can be found in 1st Kings 15:10.

Lv72 Wrote:When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa

2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa

Could not confirm 36th year as Baasha's death because in 2nd Chronicles it say's Baasha attacked Asa. This must be a mistake in later copy work. Baasha died in the 26th yea of Asa's reign.

LV72 Wrote:How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22

2CH 22:2 42

This is again the differences in the Greek and Syriac scriptures and the Hebrew, so it's either copy errors or misunderstandings between the translations. As some of the above what difference does this really make the stories do not change, they actually say the same exact things with only these date errors of the tenth or hundredth being made, 550 vs 250 and 22 vs 42 and 26 vs 36.

Lv72 Wrote:The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

I'm not reading entire books to answer your questions, give the chapter and verses.

Lv72 Wrote:What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

MAT 27:28 scarlet

JOH 19:2 purple

The Jewish people seen scarlet and purple as religious colors, read the book of Exodus you will see them mentioned there several times, because none of the writers were present when the Romans placed the robe on Him they had to depend on what others said and either color would have made sens in more ways than one. The representation could have been to convey royalty and sin, which is exactly what happened with Jesus.

Lv72 Wrote:What did they give him to drink?

MAT 27:34 vinegar

MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh

Both or one or the other, gall is a general term for bitter and myrrh is a bitter plant extract, this was probably offered to help lessen pain, a drug mixed with alcohol is intensified. Also Matthew used myrrh earlier in his gospel as a gift to Jesus from the wise men, Matthew may have been trying to avoid confusion by using the word gall.

Lv72 Wrote:How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; MAT 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and MAR 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

[/quote]

Jesus was in the tomb three days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday which includes two nights, where the third night comes in I do not know and have never heard an acceptable answer, that is for me. This is how I look at it Jesus rose from the grave after being dead and still lives, He is the first to do so but not the last.

I have gone through all these questions an researched them, I believe I have given honest and accurate answers. I do not intend to get into any drawn out arguments over these verses. The tendency of some here are to gang up and try to destroy any reasonable arguments and I will not play that game. If there are any notable questions I may revisit them in a discussion. I used the words copy and parrot many times and it was not done to embarrass 'Lv72.' I used those words to show how badly things get from copying another's work without doing your own research. I researched even those questions I knew the answers to, so that I would not be mistaken in what I wrote.

GC

Cool story, bro. I guarantee you not even 2% of this forum's population will read what you just wrote.

(October 1, 2013 at 12:51 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Cool story, bro. I guarantee you not even 2% of this forum's population will read what you just wrote.

Heh, I actually read a good chunk of it. Am I a minority?

GC, I'll give you points for effort, you finally stood up for the Bible. Good try.

I'm not going to analyze what you said, though, this isn't my fight. But I didn't agred with anything you said.

Go get 'im, LV72! I'm rooting for you!

Whoa. I need a power nap after just scrolling through that.

"The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, thus Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's and Jacob was his father. Luke gives prominence to women in his gospel, it thus is why he used Mary's genealogy and during those times it would have been natural for Joseph's father-in-law to call him son."

Say what?

"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli......"

There is just no way that is son-in-law. The point of this long list is to show that Jesus comes from the line of David and both Luke and Matthew attempt to do this through Joseph (wrongly as it happens). The son-in-law explanation isn't supported anywhere and is obviously someone's brilliant idea of how to get out of an error in the story.

Luke was written in Greek. Greek has perfectly usable words for son-in-law to differentiate it from son. If it meant son-in-law it would have said it.

Quote:The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, thus Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's and Jacob was his father. Luke gives prominence to women in his gospel, it thus is why he used Mary's genealogy and during those times it would have been natural for Joseph's father-in-law to call him son.

You are an embarrassment even to apologists, G-C. That takes some doing. You don't even know your own bullshit.

Quote:Luke 3:23-25

King James Version (KJV)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, yada, yada, yada....

and....

Quote: "yada, yada, yada...."

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Matty 1

One says "Jacob" was the father of "Joseph" and the other says that "Joseph" was the son of "Heli." That is pretty much the same shit. At the best case, one of these books of holy horseshit of yours must be wrong...of course, the odds are that both are bullshit.

BTW, you clowns are the ones who maintain that "Joseph" never nailed her. Remember? It is supposed to be your god who knocked her up.

Perhaps he was the Son of Jacob Heli? Nice Jewish family the Heli's - hard working carpenters the lot of them. He married a girl called "Apologist Nightmare" and it all started to go downhill from there on in.

---

Min,

"BTW, you clowns are the ones who maintain that "Joseph" never nailed her. Remember? It is supposed to be your god who knocked her up."

I don't think they say he never nailed her- just not until after the birth of Jesus (according to Matthew).

Funny thing though Min - that huge list of answers and we both picked up on the same one. How weird is that?

---

"DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Just cherry picking here but how well does the above line sit with the idea of original sin. We all "know death" because Adam and Eve ate some fruit they weren't supposed to.

---

"there was no Hebrew word for sphere and the people, unlike you, understood that circle of the earth meant it was round like a ball. "

Nice try but the Hebrew word for circle used was actually a short form of the word for drawn circle and not spherical. Had they wished to describe the earth as round like a ball they would have used the word for ball which they did have.

---

"A I have said before Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological order of creation. By the way the land animals were created on day six, if you're going to copy at least do it right. Elohim is the correct name for the Creator, why, because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in the 6 days of creation, simple really. God was pleased, why shouldn't He be pleased everything was perfect. God rested on the seventh day to set an example for man that rest is a necessary function of life, it has both physical and mental benefits. "

The thing I love about this story is 5 days working on the earth and accompanying life but only one day for all the 10^23 stars in the known universe.

---

"God forgot nothing He gave Adam a choice and he found all the animals lacking, bet he wished he had chosen different when Eve messed things up."

Maybe he just never met the right sheep?

Well GC before we go any farther I want to know how do you define love?

(September 29, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Truth is, you've already been shown a few in this thread; you claim that willingness to take injury for a belief is evidence for it, and you've been shown suicide bombers from other religions, just off the top of my head.

And I addressed that. Mohamed, the claimant, made out well in his life, especially compared to Jesus or Paul. I also went on to show other differentiators, such as claimed miracles and apparent myth-building. Repeating an already-refuted point doesn't make it any better.

Quote:Precisely what I said; the evidence we find in genetics and the fossil record uniformly supports evolutionary theory. Everything fits into the correct stratographic layer pretty much where it should, so much so that scientists can and have made predictions based on this and found transitional fossils in exactly the layer they thought they would.

And these are often overturned by later fossil finds. How do those first claims then uniformly support evolutionary theory.

Quote:Our genetic evidence is entirely concordant with evolution, including our ability to map the lineage of a number of species,

What do you mean by entirely concordant? Different analyses of the same group based on different genes can give different lineages, which may not match those previously made based on morphology.

Quote:Clarified. I really would be interested in examining any counter-evidence you think you might have, by the way. That wasn't combative sarcasm or anything.

Sure. Tiktaalik was crowed as a fulfilled prediction such as you mention. Researchers determined that a fish showing signs of being a precursor to tetrapods should be found at a certain age and environment, and they found it there. Later, footprints from a fully-formed tetrapod were found, in a different envrinment, and dating ten million years older than tiktaalik.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...08623.html
Excerpt: "Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."

Quote:Even if I did go to including common descent (something I'm in no way obligated to do, incidentally) how would any of those definitions exclude artificial selection as a mechanism?

Unless you're proposing theistic evolution, there was no one to perform artificial selection for 99.999something% of evolution. Plus, as noted, your own source doesn't include artificial selection on its mechanisms of evolution page. Here's another list that doesn't include it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

Quote:Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

Hmm, that really is an interesting question. A bit of cursory research shows a concept called neoteny, plus a comparable phenomenon occurring in artificially selected silver foxes. I'll keep looking into it, but this is exactly the reason I like talking about this subject. [/quote]
Then check out this blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/natura...ngineering
This is by one of a number of evolutionists who are saying that the modern synthesis doesn't explain what we see in nature.

Quote:You'd rather debate definitions again, a sure sign that you've lost a grip on your position.

No, it's a sure sign that you're using incorrect definitions.

Quote:But I'd rather debate the issue, and I'm rather interested in why you think this: evolution concerns changes in organisms over generations. Why do you think human selection of breeding partners somehow invalidates that process?

I don't necessarily think that. With the broad definition, it doesn't. Adding in common descent, I've already answered above.

Quote:Not "what dictionaries can you find that might support you," but "why do you think this is so?"

What happens if you take humans out of the process and let various breeds interbreed?