WolfBitn

Evolution IS part of science. And its a theory which evolves with the facts, that's why its still around. Theory: -An explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific community. -To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. -A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations Well tested? This my friend is laughable... you cant even present a real transition... you rest on a jawbone muscle or an ear bone lol... You claim the tiktaalik is a transitional between a fish and a tetrapod but you cant tell us which species it DIRECTLY evolved FROM and which species it directly evolved INTO.. You wouldnt even answer my question of whether or not a terapod was a 4 footed/limbed/lobed animal

Andy i have criticism of my own concerning yec Some people claim that God is able for instance, to create this world with the 'illusion' of age. In other words He created the fossils in the rock to confound those who thoguht they were wise. I cant disagree with this MORE. I dont attribute deceptiveness to God... i dont attribute fraud with God... I dont think God would intentionally try to fool people when His desire is that all people be saved. Then also, i dont see SOME of the criticism of oec being valid at all For instance, we believe that carnevours were created to be carnevours. There has never been a time for instance, when the cat family werent formidably built for stalking and killing. Their very design proves that they were NOT created to be herbivours. Plus yec in no way resembles the evidence we find in geology... fossiles and such, these things EXISTED... there HAVE been times of destruction and decimation of life on earth, and from what i see this is whats stated exactly in the hebrew. The 6 days of 'creation' fall into line exactly with what would naturally occur if this earth were struck by an asteroid, and we certainly have geological evidence of this happening on numerous occasions. My experience, when discussing God with atheists... one of the first things they attack as having no credability at all is the thought that this earth is only 6000 years old. Ecclesiates 1 may or may not be alluding to these cycles of life and destruciton

Matrix You have a bias base of judgement and to me its extreme on the hypocracy... just as much as i see in false christians, i see in your thoughts here 1 you would agree that theres time for war 2 but you demand the christian not feel this way about it, saying we cant believe as you yourself do 3 you attribute to God unfairly the very things you know to be untrue 4 you reject the source itself which tells us to live in love, and identifies true christians as those who love. 5 you dont use the bible for a source 6 you use other peoples THOUGHTS on scripture taken out of context 7 yet you reject the source material when you are refuted 8 all this shows that you are dead set not even open to a real discussion 9 which means you MUST be here for the sole purpose of causing the weak to fall if possible 10 but you can change all this and be true and fair... the question is will you even allow yourself to do this? God bless you Matrix i would only ever pray for your good ^^^thats the truth

Matrix You have a bias base of judgement and to me its extreme on the hypocracy... just as much as i see in false christians, i see in your thoughts here 1 you would agree that theres time for war 2 but you demand the christian not feel this way about it, saying we cant believe as you yourself do 3 you attribute to God unfairly the very things you know to be untrue 4 you reject the source itself which tells us to live in love, and identifies true christians as those who love. 5 you dont use the bible for a source 6 you use other peoples THOUGHTS on scripture taken out of context 7 yet you reject the source material when you are refuted 8 all this shows that you are dead set not even open to a real discussion 9 which means you MUST be here for the sole purpose of causing the weak to fall if possible 10 but you can change all this and be true and fair... the question is will you even allow yourself to do this? God bless you Matrix What I read, you're supposed to pray for those that abuse you. But on the other hand, your God/god "sweeps away his enemies." I'd question anyone who prayed for me after I "abused" them because they're probably praying for God/god's fury to sweep me away in a giant flood.

I understand the context from which it came. I know that what you quoted is in context of not judging others. But, I find it hard to reconcile with blatant instructions to kill and steal and it seems no context can justify it. As well as the verse about slaves. In what context should a slave be obedient to a master who is perverse? What does perverse mean in that context? I could look up the definition of perverse and find that its meaning doesn't make the verse any less appalling. Where do you get blatant instructions to steal? Where do you get blatant instructions to KILL outside of warfare or punishment for crime? You say you believe warfare is sometimes justified yes? Straight answer yes or no please... Do you believe some crimes are worthy of death? Now... about the new testament... WHY arent you allowing Christ to declare to you what a christian is? Shouldnt you accept HIS word over that of someone who may just not be a true follower? and HERES a question for you... what IS a 'follower' in the literal sence of the word?

Well, the Ten Commandments aren't really up to date, plus they include 3 commandments forbidding any other god or idol. And there are grey areas so I'm not going to go with that (at least I would hope no one follows them strictly without having an open mind to grey areas). From what I can read, a lot are picking and choosing. For example, I don't know many people who fast nowadays given how unhealthy it is. So that can be scratched. Given that false prophets should be killed, I'll scratch that one as well and hopefully get no rebuttal on this one. Divorce is also thrown out. Seem a little out of date. There is the most famous one to "love your enemy" but reading other parts of the Bible, killing witches and homosexuals seems a little harsh. Impatient Wolf jeez. A little time would be nice to formulate a post. So you dont believe love and killing can exist together? Also it doesnt appear youre really very able to construct a detailed thought on what Christ Himself actually taught What did He teach on humility and love? How about protecting your family as man of the house? How about forgiveness? How are we to treat those who abuse us?

Again ^^^ you keep avoiding this... why?

Supposed Christians? This guy gave you the Trinity. "He is perhaps most famous for coining the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) and giving the first exposition of the formula. Other formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"), and also the terms vetus testamentum ("old testament") and novum testamentum ("new testament")." I'm going to go with this guy was Christian and believed what he was preaching. "Real" Christians are hard to define. And even on this forum, there are those who are live by the love of their God/god (and I've named a few before) and it would be nice if all Christians were like them. But they aren't. Not even on this forum. I've met Christians who have homosexual friends and don't preach to them or attempt to "change" their sexual orientation. But I've also met Christians who hate homosexuals and tell them they are going to hell. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "real" Christian given that there are so many interpretations. "This guy" did not give us the trinity. The trinity is a doctrine that has its roots in the OT, and if you knew anything about christianity enough to debate it on a message board, youd know this Christians hate no one... real christians are bold to warn people of the end result of their sin, but this is out of compassion... Again a REAL christian follows the precepts of Christ Himself... its that simple Here Its open to interpretation. In your own words Matrix, what would you say are the precepts of Christ Himself? Well, given what I read on that site, not very nice. Given how many "different" Christians exist in the world, I really wouldn't know what the teachings of your God/god are because I'm not sure who to listen to. On the one hand, you have such nice people on this forum with good hearts and a good attitude and on the other hand you have others who are insulting and the kind of people I can see having heated conversations in life with others after telling them they're going to hell. It seems only some of you try to convert while others have the live and let live philosophy (perhaps because it cuts down on the stress and anguish of always having to defend your case). Some seem to take "God loves everyone" strictly to heart and actually go about their lives loving everyone. Others seem to take that as only the "saved" and in turn try to convert non-believers (or others of another faith) and those they deem to be too sinful (homosexuals for example). So I don't know, depends on who is talking. Im not interested in what you find on sites, and that wasnt the question... Try the bible for a source and tell me what are the very precepts of Christ Himself please Matrix You keep avoiding this^^^^ why?

Supposed Christians? This guy gave you the Trinity. "He is perhaps most famous for coining the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) and giving the first exposition of the formula. Other formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"), and also the terms vetus testamentum ("old testament") and novum testamentum ("new testament")." I'm going to go with this guy was Christian and believed what he was preaching. "Real" Christians are hard to define. And even on this forum, there are those who are live by the love of their God/god (and I've named a few before) and it would be nice if all Christians were like them. But they aren't. Not even on this forum. I've met Christians who have homosexual friends and don't preach to them or attempt to "change" their sexual orientation. But I've also met Christians who hate homosexuals and tell them they are going to hell. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "real" Christian given that there are so many interpretations. "This guy" did not give us the trinity. The trinity is a doctrine that has its roots in the OT, and if you knew anything about christianity enough to debate it on a message board, youd know this Christians hate no one... real christians are bold to warn people of the end result of their sin, but this is out of compassion... Again a REAL christian follows the precepts of Christ Himself... its that simple Here Its open to interpretation. In your own words Matrix, what would you say are the precepts of Christ Himself? Well, given what I read on that site, not very nice. Given how many "different" Christians exist in the world, I really wouldn't know what the teachings of your God/god are because I'm not sure who to listen to. On the one hand, you have such nice people on this forum with good hearts and a good attitude and on the other hand you have others who are insulting and the kind of people I can see having heated conversations in life with others after telling them they're going to hell. It seems only some of you try to convert while others have the live and let live philosophy (perhaps because it cuts down on the stress and anguish of always having to defend your case). Some seem to take "God loves everyone" strictly to heart and actually go about their lives loving everyone. Others seem to take that as only the "saved" and in turn try to convert non-believers (or others of another faith) and those they deem to be too sinful (homosexuals for example). So I don't know, depends on who is talking. Im not interested in what you find on sites, and that wasnt the question... Try the bible for a source and tell me what are the very precepts of Christ Himself please

Supposed Christians? This guy gave you the Trinity. "He is perhaps most famous for coining the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) and giving the first exposition of the formula. Other formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"), and also the terms vetus testamentum ("old testament") and novum testamentum ("new testament")." I'm going to go with this guy was Christian and believed what he was preaching. "Real" Christians are hard to define. And even on this forum, there are those who are live by the love of their God/god (and I've named a few before) and it would be nice if all Christians were like them. But they aren't. Not even on this forum. I've met Christians who have homosexual friends and don't preach to them or attempt to "change" their sexual orientation. But I've also met Christians who hate homosexuals and tell them they are going to hell. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "real" Christian given that there are so many interpretations. "This guy" did not give us the trinity. The trinity is a doctrine that has its roots in the OT, and if you knew anything about christianity enough to debate it on a message board, youd know this Christians hate no one... real christians are bold to warn people of the end result of their sin, but this is out of compassion... Again a REAL christian follows the precepts of Christ Himself... its that simple Here Its open to interpretation. In your own words Matrix, what would you say are the precepts of Christ Himself?

andy That someone would judge a brother or sister's salvation based on whether they were oec or yec, i find unchristian and attrocious. May we all better learn not to judge one another so harshly. I find that oec not only has science fact backing it (findings in the rock, not the human interpretations of said findings', it is entirely consistant inside scripture itself. I would think yec is much more hard put to come up with evidence backign their theory than those who hold to oec. I think we have to deal with the giggle factor as well. Just try to convert an atheist using yec material, and youre guaranteed to be laughed out of the building. On the other hand talk oec with an atheist and you have his ear, nor can he very easily dispute the findings from scripture itself, in comparison with what we find in rock I think we have 2 things written in stone that will never change its testimony... God's word, and scientific findings BACKING God's word

Supposed Christians? This guy gave you the Trinity. "He is perhaps most famous for coining the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) and giving the first exposition of the formula. Other formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"), and also the terms vetus testamentum ("old testament") and novum testamentum ("new testament")." I'm going to go with this guy was Christian and believed what he was preaching. "Real" Christians are hard to define. And even on this forum, there are those who are live by the love of their God/god (and I've named a few before) and it would be nice if all Christians were like them. But they aren't. Not even on this forum. I've met Christians who have homosexual friends and don't preach to them or attempt to "change" their sexual orientation. But I've also met Christians who hate homosexuals and tell them they are going to hell. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "real" Christian given that there are so many interpretations. "This guy" did not give us the trinity. The trinity is a doctrine that has its roots in the OT, and if you knew anything about christianity enough to debate it on a message board, youd know this Christians hate no one... real christians are bold to warn people of the end result of their sin, but this is out of compassion... Again a REAL christian follows the precepts of Christ Himself... its that simple

two questions... 1. Where did you get that from? 2. Why do you come here? Are you so threatend by our faith that you have to come here and attack it endlessly in hopes of maybe getting one person to turn away? RG Yes they are that threatened... not only that threatened they actually loath our religion to the point that it becomes their mission to 'deconvert' christians, and they become the missionary. They make up things like this, Christians relishing in suffering of others, when they themselves relish in killoing the faith of weak christians. Tertullian was a very important person in the early years of Christianity (he advanced new theology to the Church-he coined the term "Trinity" among other things) and his belief was that those in heaven had the pleasure of continual relish in the torture of others. "How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." Now dont you think its enough givng examples od supposed christians not alking in the fruit of Christ, when we have in fact admitted this happens? Its not about how people abuse the scrptures or how they misrepresent of mislive the doctrines of Christ... its about what Christ taught God Himself takes no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked, but its the very course THEY themselves choose, and this is stated in scripture... so why not simply admit that men abuse and misrepresent the teaching of Christ, and that Christ teaches love and patience? Why not admit that God doesnt take pleasure in the punishment of the wicked? Why not admit that REAL christians are known by their love?

two questions... 1. Where did you get that from? 2. Why do you come here? Are you so threatend by our faith that you have to come here and attack it endlessly in hopes of maybe getting one person to turn away? RG Yes they are that threatened... not only that threatened they actually loath our religion to the point that it becomes their mission to 'deconvert' christians, and they become the missionary. They make up things like this, Christians relishing in suffering of others, when they themselves relish in killoing the faith of weak christians.

Offense taken. It is not lazy to point out the meaning of the exact words used from your source. "Probably" is not the same as "definitely". It is not lazy to have examined your source to find it is spouting opinion that (in your own terms) do not have references to support its opinions. Well if you want to take offence thats up to you. My point remains that youve got a source that not only said probobly sated to 2nd century, but stated it was the basis for the latin used by Cyprian which indeed places it 2nd century... now if you simply dont want to accept this no problem, but if you want to argue it, yes i want more than your opinion, i want a reputable source stating that the alexandrian are specificly older than the western OK, thank you for your opinion. However, if the reason for your opinion is based on the fact that the alexandrian text types are completely corrupt, we should apply that same standard against the western text types. How corrupt are the western text types, if many scholars agree that they are prone to paraphrasing and embellishments? Which version is closer to the original? The one with the pericope adulterae or the one without? Regards, UF This opinion you speak of is both unwarrented and hypocritical. The 'paraphrases' are done because in certain instances there is no one particular way to use one word to interpret into another. You must get the idea of the word across becuase there is no equal in the other language. This was being interpreted from the latin and the paraphrases in quesiton almost always consisted of a word to 2 words. There is the exaggeration of your claim, and now for the hypocritical. The same people making this claim against the western text, are holding to a text that eliminates entire books, eliminate chapters, eliminate sentences, change words tens of thousands of times, trunkates sentences, repeats sentences, and was revised by 10 differant scribes over an 800 to 1200 year period. ^^^They call THAT the most reliable and the oldest lol.. One of the scribes IN THE VERY VATICANUS ITSELF... scolds prior scries for changing the text Jerome even condemened the act, actually accusing leadership of changing the text... Yes youre right about the text being changed, but where youre in error is which text Its the alexandrian... Tell me WHY is it called 'alexandrian'?

I looked at the site. "Probably be traced to second century" is not very convincing. We do not know that Codex Bezae (the most complete) is the same as the second century western text from which it is alleged to originate, since we have no older example of second century western text beyond fragments. From what I have read, the Alexandrian text type Codex Sinaiticus predates Codex Bezae. What I have been able to understand from several sources now is that the Western text type paraphrases, and embellishes, which (IMO) flies in the face of claims of inerrancy. well i find this kinda the lazy way out to ask for evidence and then just push it aside with non of your own to refute it... i dont regard opinion, no offence The specific example of the pericope adulterae is the example that Professor Ehrman used to show that the bible has been tampered with. The pericope does not exist in the Codex Sinaiticus, but does exist in the examples of Western Text Type that date much later. I have provided the reference sources for arguments for AND against, and will weigh them as I read Professor Ehrman's book (that I have since ordered). Professor Ehrman claims that the pericope was an addition to the original gospel of John. There are several scholars that agree with him. There are some that do not. I was just wondering if any here at Worthy had an opinion. Regards, UF he is incorrect. Thats my opinion, based on the fact he is going by the alexandrian manuscripts which are completely corrupt

See that is where we differ. I have already addressed this issue and told you that I cannot explain the Trinity. All I know based on the light given in Scripture is that God is ONE being but is also three separate persons. I cannot explain the nuts and bolts of their relationship and how they relate separately as the Bible doesn't tell me that. I am not going to speculate or saying anything beyond what I can see in Scripture. So I don't HAVE believe anything you assign to me just because YOU say so. Thats fair enough Do you recognize the quandry of your logic though? You have no way of explaining how 1 who is not a God alone can be added to 2 more who are not God, and the 3 be joined to MAKE one God, and yet still remain individual. Your logic is that by themselves they are not God as individuals... this makes absolutely NO sence to me and actually sounds kinda blasphemous (dont take me wrong, im not saying it is, or you are, i dont thing either, it just strikes me this way) The 3 each have to be God my friend, individually and independant of one another, before they can be One Eternal One I simply know the rules of Hebrew grammar beter than you. thats an uninformed personal opinion No, I have maintained that all three are God. What I will not accept and where you are completely wrong is claiming that they are three individual "Gods." So if Christ were by Himself... is He still God? If Christ is removed from the Father's unity, is the Father still God? Your best speculation please, this question has biblical merit Nope. I hold to their uniqueness and their Deity. You stripping them of their uniqueness by claiming they are individual "Gods." You speak with great authority, but seem to feel like you can just get off without scrutiny... i dont think thats fair to the quesiton at hand. You claim this authoritative knowledge, and yet claim to not be able to answer these nut and bolt questions... so i dont think this qualifies you to speak with this authority. If they are individual persons and each are God ONLY when they are together, what are they individually... God or nonGod? Again, I have not said or even implied that. Im sure you agree the 3 are eternal ones correct?

Wrong. I did not say they did not have a singular form. What I said was that they had a plural form that was often translated in singular form. I said Mitzrayim was translated as Egypt and is translated as Egypt over 600 times. Actually Mitzrayim does not mean "Egypt" and I never said it did. It is a word that refers to the upper and lower portions of the land we call Egypt. And as in this case you can see that Egypt referred NOT to the land but the peoples of the land... it more closely means 'the egyptians' in literal translation What we see Shiloh is that just as the Mitzarim means 'the egyptians' , "Elohenyu" means "Our Gods" here it is translated "judges" Exd 21:6 Then his master 113 shall bring 5066 him unto the judges 430; he shall also bring 5066 him to the door 1817, or unto the door post 4201; and his master 113 shall bore 7527 his ear 241 through with an aul 4836; and he shall serve 5647 him for ever 5769. Here we go with the misquotes and intentional misrepresentations of my statments yet again. I said that God is three persons, but ONE God. I did not say YHVH is plural. Again, you just can't seem to be trusted in a debate to correctly and accurately frame your opponent's position. I do not understand why you employ such a dishonest method of debate. here its translated "gods" Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 31:30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me Yet you mysteriously want to change it to a singular when it refers to YWHW when the Shema COULD HAVE USED the singular Eloah, but didnt. I said that they ares sepaarate and distinct persons and that they are each God. Do you have an aversion to calling them persons? Do you not think that they are persons? No not at all... in fact i agree with you that they are indeed 3 very distince persons, i have no aversion at all... and this is what the shema teaches. That they ARE in fact 3 very discinct individuals joined as one Eternal One. Neither do i have an aversion to acknowledging that just as Elohim is plural in the above instances and hundreds more, its plural in the Shem as well, when as i pointed out, they very well could have USED the singular form 'Eloah' but didnt. Even YHWH Himself refers to Himself in the plural. i have no aversion whatsoever in taking scripture for wxactly what it says

I dont deny badgering Blindseeker, i absolutely admit i did... but neither do i deny that i was badgered by claims of knowledge of the Hebrew in comparison to my asssumed ignorance in a couple posts there But also i know that doctrinally you agree with him on this, which is fine by me... i wont slight any of you, i only wanted to make my point and i believe it was made Now back to the thread If you would like to take on the questions in my last post my friend, im happy to discuss it with you

If you claim that the Western texts are older than the Alexandrian, please provide the Papyri or Codexes to which you are referring, and I will check their dating. From my understanding, the Codex Bezae is the most complete of the western text examples, and that is certainly later than the Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus. the works already done for you This site is even biased in YOUR favor and admits its date to the 2nd century... and as far as the codex Bezae, being the most complete text by no means implies even that its the oldest. http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html Please do, as this was the specific example (pericope adulterae) I asked about several posts ago. Regards, UF I could study the issue, but frankly i dont have the time, i have other projects going right now... you can feel free to ask me specifics though and not just my opinion. I would be happy to discuss any part of your point on this, dont take me as shying from it at all, i wouldnt do that to you

I dont know what you mean here... i addressed all the issues just now in my last post... neither has the badgering OR insult been made solely by me... but we're both brothers and big boys, no harm intetnded or done As far as anything i said was ssaid by shiloh in my last post, i can post his quotes... from post 41 God is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. from post 43 I believe that Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. I do NOT believe they are indiviual "gods." So my quesiton becomes The shema claims that Elohim make one YHWH, why is shiloh claiming that 3 YHWH make one Elohim? If they are all 3 God, and yet individual, then this means NONE of them are God alone as shiloh states... i find that shocking that he would believe this frankly. None of them are God alone? I submit all 3 are God and all 3 are united as one, just as the shema advises us quite literally If God =1 and Jesus isnt God within Himself The Father isnt God within Himself The Holy Spirit isnt God within Himself then 0+0+0=0 It makes no sence whatsoever in this context... One cannot give that which he diesnt have This isnt the case of the shema saying three eternal ones is joined to make one God... she Shema says just the opposite... the PLURAL for God make up 1 Eternal one The Shema is very clear in this case So id like for shiloh to address this quandry Jesus=God and an individual The Father =God and an individual The Holy Spirit = God AND an individual... according to shilohs agreeing statement how can they be God united if they arent first God seperately? What IS their essence apart from one another? Each STOPS being God?

I explained the currently accepted model of gravity according to general relativity. That you took this as a statement of fact speaks to your reading comprehension skills yet again. If you prefer me not to take you seriously when youre speaking authoritatively i wont... my point was you should say something to the effect "some theorize" or "one theory is" not "well this is what it izzzzz" Yay for Guth, he has a postulate with no way to test it that not only implies a breakdown in the normal laws of physics but an actual reversal of gravity. Good for him. The problem with looking past the big bang is that we don't have a unified theory that combines relativity with quantum physics, the best description of this issue and how it pertains to the big bang I've found is this: "Because Einstein's general theory of relativity works so well, we have to accept for now its description of space and time as only aspects of the gravitational field of everything in the universe...gas...energy...matter...light. Near the Big Bang, gravity amplified itself by feeding off of its own energy in a complex and brief state, which ended in this gravitational energy producing the first generations of particles and anti-particles. These later decayed into, not only the familiar electrons and quarks, but also into the particles of light and the essences of the other fundamental forces in existence today. Mathematically we can describe much of this transformation, because many of its key ingredients have been seen by physicists already, at their laboratories. But the earliest conditions have yet to be artificially re-created so that we can thoroughly test our best theories. "So, gas was once part of space; space remains indistinct from gravity, and so everything we see around us was once part of the invisible field we call gravity...which flashed into existence billions of years ago. Like a car rolling down hill, the momentum of this event is still with us and drives the expansion of the universe, and the clumping of matter into galaxies, stars, planets and ourselves!" http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11844.html Good for you, if you can demonstrate how one could test a hypothesis about the first cause of the big bang singularity I'd be happy to take a look at it. Unifying relativity and quantum mechanics would be a good place to start. Good luck. As for your second question, I believe in the same God you do and I believe that He is the outside cause. Science can take me to the edge of creation, faith takes me past that edge to the Creator. In the end it works itself out. Let me ask you something Lurker... if you believe in the same God i do, and you believe that if there was a bang He is the outside cause, why are you argueing against me, if i'm argueing the same thing?

From what I have gathered, the oldest Western text of importance is Codex Bezae, which is dated to circa 400 CE. While the oldest and most important Alexandrian text is Codex Sinaiticus, which is dated to circa 330-360 CE. No Not so at all The western text dates to the 2nd century and was used to translate into the latin which was widely used in africa. Cyprian used this very latin bible, and quoted the Johannine Comma before 250 AD. The one you are referring to is certainly the most famous of the manuscripts, but its also certainly not the oldest, as the western types trace to the 2nd century. Yes and youve certianly been shown that the western is the oldest. If you dont miind, specify one of these controvercial western non-interpolations... give me all you have please

Shiloh, What you have shown is that you dindt know those 5 or 6 hebrew words had a singular form, and also that you thought one meant Egypt. Youce shown that you believe the singular YHWH to be used as a plural while you believe the plural Elohim should be singular. You say you believe the Father is an individual and He is God You say you believe Jesus is an individual and He is God You say that the Holy Spirit is an individual and HE is God You MUST then either believe that they are all 3 GOD individually and independant of one another OR that NEITHER of them are God individually and independent of one another... If NONE of them are God without the other, at which point do they become God? Are they God when only 2 are together? You complicate things Shiloh by going against the very grammatical rules of plural and singular You have no problem saying 3 are 1, you just have a problem saying all 3 are God, yet you just did. You have no problem at ALL saying that they are all 3 God joined as One, yet you want to take away their diety in their uniqueness? How is it possible that these 3 arent God individually? Which one do you assume REMAINS God when He is alone? Youre putting it backward when you imply there are 3 eternal ones who are not independantly God... the truth is THAT the shema says that the "3 Gods are ONE ETERNAL ONE"

No problems here Traveller He claimed to know the language and i only tried to see the degree to which this was true. I will be glad to address other issues, and i take it he is happy not to claim to be an authority