WolfBitn

You need a source to know that gravity is what holds the atmosphere to earth? Really? Come on man, I shouldn't have to baby step you through this. That was an incredible attempt at sidetracking... i congratulate you lol but you know what i mean... give me a link backing your claims that a canopy cannot contain water, when you yourself didnt argue the point that what water is LEFT on Venus, is IN the canopy Well, for one thing atheists are not the only ones who acknowledge the big bang theory; lots of Christians do. For another thing I am not an atheist. The big bang theory explains what happened from a few milliseconds after the big bang singularity to the present in terms of the formation of the universe. The big bang singularity is defined as the point at which the laws of physics break down. Because of this a few milliseconds after it occurred is the furthest we can ever hope to "look back", hence the origins of the big bang which kicked off time, space, matter, and energy are beyond the realm of observation and are thus, by definition, beyond the reach of science as we know it. If there ever comes a time when we develop the technology to look past this point (And I use "look" somewhat metaphorically here) that may change, but for the time being it is simply beyond the ability of science to know. O my gosh lol what a load of bunk Lurker... beyond the realms of YOUR science maybe... not mine So you agree with several astrophysicists that thelaws of physics were not in effect before the expansion is this correct? Can you tell em what this mass of energy/matter possibly looked like before the expansion? a guess on the shape and size please... a ball, a plane, hexogonal, the size of a baseball or a planet... how would you describe it before the expansion?

I've purchased the book, but it may be a while before I get around to reading it. My understanding is that research on the fossil is not yet complete. More work is to be done. The point to make from the evolutionary perspective is that this fossil could be a link to our lineage, but no one in the field will say that it is. Do not think of evolution as being like a ladder that leads to humans. No evolutionist thinks that way, anymore. The contemporary view is of a bush with many horizontal as well as vertical branches. Ida is on that bush, but no one knows exactly where. She could be on one of the side branches that never led to humanity, but something like her must have given rise to the monkeys. This fossil creature looks a lot like a lemur, but she has some features that are characteristics of monkeys, not lemurs. So, given that evolution is true, Ida looks like a transitional-type animal midway between lemurs and monkeys. At least that is my understanding, but my knowledge of this fossil is quite limited. The assumption , as I currently understand it, is that Ida -- or something very similar to her -- gave rise to the monkeys. It is pointless for anyone to jump up and down and shout that this is not a transitional fossil (Creatiionists of course don't believe that transitional fossils exit). What's important is that it apparently is a lemur-like animal with some surprisingly monkey-like features. If we were to draw-up a Venn diagram Ida would sit between lemurs and monkeys. For you that won't mean she is transitional, but it should help you to understand why evolutionists look at her that way. If you want to insist that evolutionists have no justification for putting Ida between lemurs and monkeys then you must actually provide evidence that reflects what is known about the fossil. I probably told you more than you cared to hear. Or maybe not enough? http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view...;sigb=11op9c7db Check out the link ^^^ I dont find this of any cause for excitement at all... a lemur itself is "incredably monkey-like" as are likely dozens of other animals... possibly hundreds through time

Hello and Shalom One of my very favorite subjects of meditation inthe word concerns the multiplicity of our God... the fact He is a trinity and yet one. I love reading through passages and suddenly thinking "WOW, this has been there all along hinting at the fact that our 1 God is 3 individuals unified as 1 God. I dont pretend to understand how... God is all mighty and all powerful and i cant explain how he made the universe from nothing, but this doesnt detract from the truth He did, nor does it detract from the fact that 3 are 1. I was reading the Shema... thinking of how Caiaphas quoted it as he rent his clothing during the trial of Christ. It occurred to em that this indeed was most ironic... The Shema, as its called by religious Jews, whether messianic or rabbinical, is Deuteronomy 6:4, and gets its name from the very first word in the passage. It literally means "HEAR!" Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Caiaphas crucified our Lord by the hands of Pilot, on the charge that He made Himself equal with God, citing the very Shema itself as his justification... is it possible that he never considered the depth of the words? Was it fear of losing his position, was it pride? Who knows... i do know the very passage he cited to crucify our Lord was the one passage which should have given him reason to pause and think... reconsider... Today we have many who believe in our God, but they do not believe Jesus is God... they may believe He is a good man, maybe they believe He was a deceiver, maybe a wonderful philosopher, but they believe there is one God and one alone... they ARE correct in a manner, yet the shema shows us the error of their thinking as well... In Genesis, and all through the OT, God is called, in the Hebrew, "Elohim", which is the plural for "God" but here we have Eloheynu. This is nothing more than "Elohim" in the first person plural possessive, which causes us to add an "Our" to the noun. This word then literally means "Our Gods"... in the plural So what does the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) say? Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Breaking this down in the Hebrew, here is what we have... shema`Yisra'el YHWH 'Eloheynu YHWH echad What an extremely interesting passage! Shema=Hear, this is where we get the title for this passage... the Shema Shema Yisra'el, = "Hear o Israel!" YHWH= The Eternal One Eloheynu= Our GODS echad= ONE... but it has a very interesting usage... it is used ALWAYS to show severla units or things commbined into ONE unit... like 50 pennys is " 'echad' roll of pennys". It is ONE having been made ONE by 2 or more being items joined as ONE YHWH= Eternal One in other words... HEAR O ISRAEL!!! THE ETERNAL ONE IS Our GODS UNITED OR JOINED AS ONE ETERNAL ONE!!! This i would consider to be a very early referance to the Trinity. This doesnt specify a Trinity, doesnt specify ANY number, but it does specify more than one united or joined as one. "Echad" is a key word here

Call me a middle man First of all i would clarify one can be totally unable to process anything but the most basics of thought, and yet that person could be full of faith enough to literally move mountains. On the other hand like our brother pointed out, lack of knowledge destroys us... knowledge without wisdom and understanding is a disaster, i agree with him. Also Jesus said "Take my yoke opon you and LEARN of me", and we know we are to saturate ourselves in the word seeking knowledge and understanding and wisdom in, about and for Christ. The more we learn of God the more intelligent we are regarding God, so i dont think we can seperate learning of God from intelligence concerning God. I am a voracious reader of many things, i love researching all manner of things and seeing how they work in hand with God and His word. Like paul i can say its all nothing in that it wont get me to heaven, it doesnt make me righteous, on the other hand it helps in my discussions with people. The Holy Spirit surely guides, but i dont mind trying to give him something to work with more than my sincerity alone lol... Learning, in my mind, is just a personal joy and pleasure. I think too how many times paul said 'i would not have you to be ignorant'... I strive not to be ignorant in any subect... but i place no redeeming value in it. I like the point made by LV too that one can get so wrapped up in their own intelligence... they really would have been better off staying ignorant i think... and this is an easy trap to step into... we dont have to be much to be swelled in pride. In the end, intelligence is a blessing of sorts... the more we know of the word itself, the more intelligent we become concerning the word and thats not a bad thing at all... on the other hand if we swell in pride or put emphesis on intelligence over relationship... even if we think our intelligence raises us aove our brethren or anyone else... well then i think we could be in trouble Its a matter of humility before God and realizing everything, including intelligence, is His gift to us and not to be abused

The amount of water vapor in Venus' atmosphere is tiny to the point of omission, nor does it change the fact that the only reason Venus' atmosphere can support that much cloud cover is because it is so incredibly hot. On earth, our atmosphere can only hold so much water before it becomes saturated. As I tried to explain before you can pack more moisture into air by raising the temperature but in order to build an actual canopy of water vapor you would have to raise the temperature of earth beyond what could sustain human life. Additionally, all of this does nothing to explain the massive amount of heat that would be released when all that water vapor condensed into rain which would have roasted the earth's surface even further. How would water vapor remain in place ABOVE the atmosphere? Why do you think there is an upper limit to the atmosphere? What do you think holds the atmosphere to the earth and keeps all those gas particles from just drifting off into space? For the second time the atmosphere is kept in place by gravity, that's why there is a limit: as you move away from earth gravity gets weak until it can't hold gas particles any more and they kind of flit back and forth between earth and space. Throw anything up past that and most of it will boil off into space. . .this also flies in the face of the basic properties of water vapor. . .do you see many pictures of huge clouds in the upper atmosphere? I wonder why that is? Why don't you make that your homework assignment. I dont regard your post without sources to prove what youre saying... youre obviously wrong and im not argueing it with you... so get your source or keep giving your opinion and being ign ored lol Tell me something... why do atheists say the laws of physics werent applicable in the causation of the big bang? Every action has an equal but opposite reaction, and a stationary force will do nothing unless it is acted upon... so tell me the causation of the bang... what caused the expansion if the laws of physics werent even in existance at the time of the bang or just before

there is no passage in the Bible that address the PRE fall condition of Adam in the way that you are asking. The absence of them does not make you right any more than the absence of a Bible verse telling me there are no blue unicorns means there are blue unicorns. Uh huh... there are scriptures concerning the qualifications of a sacrifice though... and if an animal was accepted and you can produce no scripture showing a Sinless Adam couldnt have been accepted then youre just plum outta luck bubba, you cant prove your case, and this remains a hypothetical possibility What would God have done do you think, if Adam, sinless would have offered his life for eves? Odd statement coming from a guy trying to put Adam on the same level as Jesus. I never did that either, and i could demand you quote me on this, but youre just trolling, ive got you down pat now, and you will bypass that too with more garb and no source

The link in the bible shows the antitype. Death came from the first adam. Life came from the second adam. Life and death cannot come from the first adam. Why and how did death come through the first Adam AJ?

Hi neb, I think it is both of them entwined together truth is we don't know what would have happened if Adam had not fell no matter which way it went Adam could never cover eve's sin he could not save her no matter what for he had not the power to wash away sins therefore he could not be the Saviour of the world. It is also my observation that in the OP wolf is trying to link Adam (1st Adam) to the 2nd Adam but he is doing it in away where Adam was a sacrifice for sin to Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. The one and only begotten son of God was the only sacrifice for the sins of the world that will ever be. If I haven't got it right someone could let me know. OC Hi OC The problem is I'm not the one linking the first Adam to the 2nd Adam... the bible does this for us. If you dont mind indulging me one question, are you aware of any scripture at all, detailing the qualifications of a specific sacrifice, where the qualificaiton is more than being sinless/spotless?

Ironicly the federal government can do just about anything it wants to spy on any american citizen in many differant ways because of the patriot act, with no warrent and no judge... not responsible to the american citizens any more This government is supposed to be a government OF the people but its out of hand. If we the people are the government why are we forced open books and they are protected closed books?

I dont mean to speak for OneLight, but i believe OneLight is showing that concubines were legitimate wives, they just held a secondary rank to the primary wives

LordV, you believe so close to the same as i do I extend it for a small trip... In Thessalonians we are told we will 'meet' the Lord in the air. That word is ONLY used a couple times (off the top of my head i think 3) and when its used it has the implicaiton of leaving to meet someone who is on their way to see you, meeting them while they are on their way, and then escorting them back to where you just left from For instance paul was on his way to a city, and all the christians in the city left to go meet him and escorted him back to their city. We're told we will be changed and then the Holy Angels will gather us, and they take us to meet the Lord in the air... i dunno where this may be... our atmosphere? outside of it? i dunno but i do know itll be a trip And then we escort Him back here and watch Him take His world away from Satan amen lol Wow whatta time thatll be

I declare we ARE to judge doctrine... Jerry Jenkins and Tim Lahaye teach we can receive the mark of the beast and still be saved in the 8th book called 'the mark' I approached Jenkins myslef asking that they put a disclaiomer in their books concerning this... The following is an example of a few who decided to follow the author, and werent cared for enough to be told that the scripture said otherwise; I referanced for Jenkins the passages of scripture showing those who receive the mark are damned... Heres Jerry Jenkins reply to me

No comprehensive understanding of evolution would prohibit stasis or possible loss of traits depending on environment. These may be the exception, but they do happen. You are over simplifying a vast theory in order to make a point instead of actually trying to understand what that theory actually means. NO ONE familiar with the theory of evolution is going to fail to note this which makes your argument very similar to other creationist arguments in that it depends mostly on the ignorance of its audience. Wow, what an amazing atrocity of logic. . .so chromosome fusion which results in zero new information is "de-evolution" but the loss of an entire sensory organ is not? We are discussing a lifeform moving from the more complex to a simpler form... as in a 2 celled organism devolving into a single celled organism... you should stop grasping for straws lol... A trading of one sence for the heightening of the rest isnt DEevolution So you have nothing my friend... nothing showing this occuring naturally It doesnt occur without ASSISTANCE... hence my point The "assistance" they gave was to put a bunch of grasshoppers together. It's called an "experiment", what would you have them do? Go out and run after grasshoppers in the wild to try and watch them reproduce? The whole point of an experiment is to cut down on the variables which is exactly what this one did. Chromosome fusion happens in all kinds of animals, it's been observed, it's been proven, it's been documented, it's been shown to you, get over it. I know you built your whole ad hoc "only-humans-can-devolve" pseudo-theory on this silly notion but it's your own fault for not even bothering to do a google search on the subject before going off half cocked. ] sure... which is why you cant produce a single instance of it happening naturally outside of labratory conditions ...after all these pages this is apparent No, actually, they don't. The Przewalski horse, for example, has 66 chromosomes and can produce fertile offspring with the 64 chromosome domestic horse. The fact that you don't understand that this is the entire point is telling. Do yourself a favor, please do not repeat this argument anywhere else until you've done at least a little bit of research. Now youre being dishonest and avoiding the point... you KNOW if you know anything about this that in the VAST majority of cases chromosomes MUST match numericly in order to produce viable fertile embrios... and IF you had even read that article and know anything about the subject youd know that the mitochondrial dna for the 2 breeds of horse was nearly an exact match

Within the realm of those who are well grounded in the truth, I would welcome such discussions, but to throw them in front of one who stumble on a leaf or twig, is very dangerous and will harm. There is a time and place for everything. We should be wise in deciding when and where these are. I agree... unfortunately on a message board we would never be able to clear a section just for seasoned believers. No matter the lesser leared and those with weaker faith have access to just about any conversation. In this case i think its best to put it out there and hope they ask questions and learn rather than never discussing them at all

But did Adam have the Spirit of God dwelling within him the way we do? And although on the outset it may seem Adam's relationship with the Lord was better than what we have right now . . . how would you compare what Adam have to what we will have in Heaven and in the Age to come? Thats a good and fair point and question. Honestly i have no way to gauge it. I am certainly tempted to say the relationship we have now is superior, but i really cant commit to more than recognizing its prolly so. on the other hand wouldnt you agree friendships are stronger where there have never been betrayals? ...so you see my delimma lol... On this point i lean your way, but having no frame of referance as to what that relation was really like... i just have a hard time comitting to it

No, no, no, no, no. Venus has a very thick atmosphere with a cloud cover of sulfer dioxide and sulferic acid, that IS its atmosphere and it is not "vapor of water". Venus is also the hottest planet in the solar system which has something to do with it as well. In order to suspend that much water vapor in air you need to raise the temperature of the atmosphere significantly, here are some basics. "There is an upper limit to the amount of water vapor that can be present in a given mass of air. That is, there is a limit to the capacity of air to "hold" water vapor. When that limit is reached, we say that the air is saturated with water vapor. One way to represent the maximum amount of water vapor that can be "mixed with" a given amount of air--that is, the maximum capacity of air to "hold" water vapor--is the saturation mixing ratio. We usually express saturation mixing ratio as the number of grams of water vapor that would have to be "mixed with" each kilogram of air to saturate the air. The maximum capacity of air to hold water vapor depends on the temperature of the air. Warmer air is capable of holding more water vapor than cooler air is." http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/metr3...moist_sum.html This is not to say that warm air always has more water vapor, only that it has a higher capacity to retain water vapor than colder air. At 30 degrees C the maximum humidity ratio of water to air is 0.027125 (kilograms of water/kilograms of air). You simply can't get enough water into the atmosphere without raising the temperature past plausible limits. Simple math. You must have missed what i said... there is VERY LITTLE water on venus and NONE on the planet itself... the water that DOES exist remains in the atmosphere and this is verified by HUNDREDS of papers form universities, observatiries, and other scientific research... The point being that a CANOPY surrounding the atmosphere is NOT far fetched as you postulate with no source Yes of course other things exist in that canopy but ALL the water on the planet is also found there

I didnt post that thread, i was asked to participate in it by the one who started the thread so we judge people by the threads they post in on a christian board? ok lol, but i dont see the righteousness in that Honestly my initial confusion with your postings had to do with your first two: One on the KJV/Johanine Comma, and regarding the 10 Commandments. We have seen a lot of legalists on this boards and have become very familiar with the arguments themselves, as well as the mannerisms of the persons presenting them. I admit to jumping to a wrong conclusion about you, Wolf, and ask your forgiveness. I think that we are on opposite sides with regard to the function of the law, however, and acknowledge to you that our fellowship need not be influenced by that disagreement. In answer to your question, yes, sometimes, even often, posters are judged by the type of threads they start on the forums - especially when they are newbies. Again, we've seen many of the same "type" on Worthy, and it is sometimes hard to figure where a person's coming from outside of the type of threads he or she begins with. Some come here with a specific agenda of "teaching all the ignorant Christians," and we sometimes have to be forceful with those with an agenda like that. We're not about allowing just any person to come on here and belligerently beat others over the head with confining teachings. WE are cool brother, we are brothers no problem at all. Let me say too that i dont think we should try keeping the law hoping to be saved from it... For a christian compliance with the law is enacted by love for God and man. My only point is that we are judged by it if we break it... but i do agree that nothing like this need ser=perate us as brothers.. honestly i think we believe fairly closely to the same thing As for the kjv... i admit i could have done that thread differantly and i sorry if i seemed to be spamming. I intended honestly only that the basic info be easily found and referred back to. I'll try to take into consideration that this isnt always the best way to go about something God bless you my friend

Actually both Nebula. I am asking based on a scenario of Adam not eating of the tree, asking what his state would have been and would he actually qualify as a sacrifice IF he fell on his face before God begging mercy for Eve and offering himself instead oK. Well, I gave an answer to the first question, and no one seemed to notice . . . so what are your thoughts, then? Re-post: What would have happened? God would not have become man. And we would not be able to have the kind of relationship with the Lord that we can have now by being joined into His death and resurrection. I agree it certainly would have changed a lot of things. As christians we often shake our heads for the things Adam brought upon us... often in frustration with the world around us. Maybe it was better for us all that he fell... On the other hand Christ had an exceptional relationship with Adam before the fall it seems.

You are entertaining the thought that Adam could have been a sacrifice and redeemed Eve because before his fall he was sinless. In your train of thought in this regards as Adam could have been the sacrifice is desperately in error. Adam's blood could never redeem anybody in a fallen state or not in a fallen state the reason being is because Adam's blood had no redeeming power nor could it give us eternal life that life was only in the blood of Jesus who gave his own self own the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. Again comparing Christ with Adam in the way you've done is in error First Adam was not the Savior of this world and his blood would do nothing in saving Eve or any one else and this was before Adam fell. You are in error thinking that the blood of Adam could be the one spotless sacrifice. What was the requirement of Christ in order to be our sacrifice,? Do you agree Christ was our sacrifice because no human could? Dont we teach that ALL man is sinful therefore Christ couldnt even have an earthly Father? Isnt this why God had to sacrifice Himself for us?

ANIMALS were a temporary, imperfect sacrifice. The act of the sacrifice had to be done over and over again, because they were not the perfect sacrifice, only Jesus fits that bill. To put Adam on the level of the animals would mean that his sacrifice done over and over again. To make it a one time thing puts him on the same level as Jesus. but you do agree Adam qualified to be that sin offering then i take it man

Nebula thank you my friend God bless you I didnt post that thread, i was asked to participate in it by the one who started the thread so we judge people by the threads they post in on a christian board? ok lol, but i dont see the righteousness in that

which is ALL ANYONE IS SAYING. No one is saying that the "was" could not be "became", we are saying that it is not a STONE COLD HARD FACT like you have put forth. The ignorance of this statement is painful lol You arrogance knows no bounds does it. trust me, you outdo it with ignorant statements yup uh huh... you know better than Hebrew scholars ...ok i believe you i do thank you for the laugh first thing in the morning lolol, God bless ya dude have a good day lol...

Well pokemaughan its my pleasure to know you... i'll try to live up to that excellent compliment, but if i can even come close, its by Gods graces alone my friend