Jzyehoshua

I did find one mainstream source mentioning the PLO still doesn't seem to recognize Israel's right to exist. However, the PLO member in question was a member of the Third Way Party, not Fatah. Fatah does not seem to be synonymous with the PLO, and the PLO seems to include many other parties, even some Hamas members. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-palestinians-israel-recognition-idUSBREA240YJ20140305 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/world/middleeast/palestinian-factions-announce-deal-on-unity-government.html Finding good information on this subject is difficult. I'd prefer a mainstream source unaffiliated with either side to decide. There are a lot of sources which claim the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in 1993.

Fatah isn't reasonable and refuses recognize Israel's legitimacy. They are just as bad as Hamas. Just because they wear a coat and tie doesn't mean they aren't the same kind of bloodthirsty thugs that Hamas is. Fatah is the old PLO and Mahmoud Abbas is a holocaust denier. Well, you can't argue that the PLO is the same as Hamas is, because the PLO now recognizes Israel's legitimacy. In 1996 it removed the articles calling for Israel's destruction after it recognized Israel's right to exist in peace in 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization Peace was being reached between Israel and Palestine before the death of Yasser Arafat in Fatah though.

You are mistaken. Verses 35-36 do not refer merely to women. You cannot, using good exegesis arrive at that conclusion. Jesus answered the question definitively and without an ambiguity. Jesus said that those living in the next life are do not marry nor are given in marriage. There is no way you can make that gender specific. Secondly you are ripping Gal. 3:28 out of its immediate context. That verse is referring to equal access to God's grace. Paul is saying that ethnicity, gender and social status do not put anyone at an advantage or disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned. Isaiah 11: 8-9 isn't talking about the next life. It is talking about the millennial reign of Jesus that precedes the next life. Tribulation believers that survive into the millennium will have children during that time period. Whereas, believers from the church age will already have their glorified bodies. and will not be having children but will be busy in Kingdom affairs. Not gender specific so much as situation specific, in addressing women who had been forced into arranged marriages or forced to marry multiple husbands. It would make sense in the next life for them to not have to be forced to marry anymore but to have authority to determine their own relationships. Nor am I convinced Galatians 3:28 is out of context, it seems consistent with John 17:21. John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. As for Isaiah 11:8-9, what then would you say the "holy mountain" refers to if the period is just during the Milennial Reign? It certainly cannot refer to the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ which wouldn't have come down from Heaven yet. Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Seven Heads of the Beast = Seven hills/mountains, possibly of Rome (Rev. 17:9) 10 Horns = 10 Kings who serve the Beast (Rev. 17:12) Beast = 8th King (Rev. 17:11) Waters of the Great Harlot = Peoples/Nations/Races (Rev. 17:5) Great Harlot = Great city which reigns over the kings of the Earth (Rev. 17:18) 7 Candlesticks = 7 Churches (Rev. 1:20) 7 Stars = 7 Angels of the 7 Churches (Rev. 1:20) 7 Lamps of fire before the throne = 7 spirits of God (Rev. 4:5) 7 Eyes of the Lamb = 7 spirits of God sent into the Earth (Rev. 5:6) Golden vials of odors = Prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8) 2 Olive Trees/Candlesticks = Two witnesses/anointed ones who stand by the Lord (Rev. 11:3-4, Zec. 4:14) Cherubim were represented as olive trees in the OT (1 Ki. 6:23) Sun, moon, and 12 stars of Rev. 12 = Israel and the 12 tribes (Gen. 37:9-10)

The horse and camel used to exist in the new world (americas) until prehistoric man wiped them out. I suspected that dinos were wiped out after the flood by various things. If not man, then by a changed environment or disease etc. I just can't see a TRex getting on the ark.... What if Rex was just a baby, and a vegetarian at that? they don't have a mouth structure for being a vegetarian, but I guess it could have been eggs.... but I really do tend to go along with genetic manipulation. I remember reading something about them being a vegetarian and it seemed pretty convincing. Though I didn't prove it for my self so it's just on the wall until I get around to its validity. OT-KJV Before the flood Gen 1: 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. OT-KJV After the flood Gen 9: 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Actually it's a common misconception that meat eating didn't start until after the Flood. The whole reason for bringing more clean animals on the Ark was for eating them. The distinction between clean and unclean for purposes of dietary safety was established before Noah ever went on the Ark. Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Israel seems to get along a lot better with Fatah who rules Palestine's West Bank than with Hamas. Israel was granting Palestine more autonomy until 2006. Israel pulled out of Gaza and then Hamas took over from Fatah by force, murdering the opposing party's members, torturing, and killing Christians in the Gaza Strip. Hamas doesn't even play nice with other terrorist groups, and in 2013 the Islamic Jihad Movement broke ties with it because Hamas had murdered one of their leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Other_political_and_militant_groups_in_Gaza Hamas is a worldwide recognized terrorist organization. I don't think there can be a ceasefire with Hamas involved, the only solution will be taking over the region and stamping Hamas' terrorists out by force, isolating them and locking them up. Fatah is the reasonable group, Hamas contains a bunch of evil terrorists.

Knowledge in itself isn't wrong, indeed the Bible calls on Christians to study to answer, and calls noble those who question so long as they do so with an open mind and a desire to find the truth about God. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. What Adam and Eve did wasn't wrong because of seeking knowledge. They were commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because God didn't want them to be corrupted by knowing about evil. Knowledge of good wasn't the problem, but knowledge of evil. Paul expresses this principle, that Christians should be wise about good specifically. Romans 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

I will say though in looking closer that 1 Corinthians 15 seems to show spiritual bodies are involved in the resurrection after the Milennial Reign. Although even then if the bodies were similar to angels, you get into the issue of the Nephilim with Genesis 6:1-2. Complications everywhere.

Well as seen from Jeremiah 2:2, Ezekiel 16:8, and Hosea 1:2, God already considers Himself married to Israel and has for thousands of years.

1. A lot of Christians struggle with this topic, in fact I noticed a forum topic a while back with someone losing their faith over this subject. 2. It would seemingly contradict other teachings of Jesus about God making mankind male and female originally for a reason. (Matthew 19:4-6) Not to mention, again, the fact that God blesses marriage, and marriage was a commandment for church leaders. (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6) 3. It would seemingly contradict passages showing there will be marriage and childbirth in the new heavens and new earth. (Isaiah 11:8-9, 4:1, 65:20, Zechariah 8:5)

There are many different scientific theories also, that doesn't mean none of them can be right. There's strong disagreement on any issue that matters, be it science, government, even dictionaries can be in disagreement over the meaning of a word. Scientists disagree fiercely for example over what should be the proper definition for species. Disagreement simply is the result of a complex subject that is of great importantance, as people try to figure out the answer.

The passage very specifically addresses women who had to marry their husband's brothers under Jewish custom though. I'm just not convinced that it can be extrapolated to refer to all marriage in the next life without additional supporting passages, especially since the Bible makes clear that God blesses marriage. (Hebrews 13:4, Proverbs 18:22)

I know there's a very confusing passage about marriage in the new heavens/earth, and want to suggest a possibility by which there could be marriage: Luke 20:27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. The solution is very simple. What if the verses 35-36 just refer to women who've been married multiple times, including those in Jewish custom had to marry the husband's brother if he died without children, to preserve the lineage? In other words, rather than saying nobody would marry in the next life, Jesus would have been saying female Christians would be treated the same as men in the next life, allowed to marry whoever they want rather than being subject to the will of their husbands or being given in marriage by their fathers as was Middle Eastern custom? They would have the authority of the angels, equal to the angels, since as Paul says, Jesus considers all Christians the same regardless of gender. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. There are after all passages which appear to show children will exist in the next life, so logically you would assume marriage as well. Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

I debunked that alleged contradiction when debunking Jim Meritt's list from Infidels. Analysis was as follows: http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels#Meritt40

Ironically atheists make two contradictory claims. When the Gospels contain similar details Bible critics claim this is evidence the Bible authors copied from one another per the Q Hypothesis. When the Gospels contain different levels of detail, levels which complement rather than necessarily contradicting, Bible critics falsely assert these are contradictions or inconsistencies, and say one can't assume both accounts were equally true. It's actually a clear double standard the Biblical critics are using.

This is one of the alleged contradictions claimed by ThinkingAtheist, and I had to address it when completely debunking their list. http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist My explanation for this alleged contradiction was as follows:

There are three evidences I typically point to as contradicting the Big Bang theory: 1. Accelerating expansion of the universe. The universe under the Big Bang model was supposed to see decelerating expansion, not accelerating. Scientists invented hypothetical, entirely unevidenced hypotheses called Dark Energy and Dark Matter to try and explain this expansion when it was discovered in 1999. It is arguably the biggest headache for Big Bang theorists to explain. 2. Lack of antimatter. The Big Bang should have created equal parts matter and antimatter, but all the antimatter is missing. 3. Planet formation. Recently a giant planet, HD 106906 b, was discovered far bigger and heavier than should have been created by a Big Bang.

Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, with or without a microscope. Nevertheless, i think we all agree they exist. And it has been observated that the universe is expanding, so if something expands, it had to start somewhere, doesnt matter if it is 5000 or 13.7 billion years ago. but because we have observated that the universe is billions of lightyears in seize, and light has a limited speed, it is impossible the that light has traveled billions of lightyears towards us in just 5000 years. Not that that is the only evidence: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/ By the way in the begin post i saw the mentioning of a quasar. 5000 years is totally NOT enough time to even enough time to form an apropirate star for it, not even speaking of the quasar itself. Also look at the fact that the fotons of the quasar had to travel towards us with the limited light speed. And the quasar happened much more than 5000 lightyears away from us. I can continue with this for a very long time... I know much about astronomie and physics. Well, atoms have been photographed from the inside using a quantum microscope. The Big Bang has not only never been witnessed but doesn't even have a working theoretical model yet. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v10/n4/full/nmat2957.html In fact, when Stephen Hawkins addressed the issue, he said it would involve a singularity where all the laws of physics broke down, so actually there isn't even a way to explain a Big Bang without denying the laws of physics existed. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Of course when population growth, microevolutionary rates, the expansion rate of the universe, or other variables are consistent with a young creation rather than millions and billions of years, you will frequently hear it claimed by science that those rates are just "speeding up" or "accelerating" for some unknown reason. https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=science+rate+speeding+up&oq=science+rate+speeding+up

My prediction would be, if the planet and everything on it truly is young...then we'd find more than one radio metric method that would show this. I mean every single atomic clock that is measured is way off due to external influences? That's sound like an excuse to me. Well there are methods that show a young earth, human population growth and microevolutionary rates for example. The rates at which population grows and organisms adapt is too fast for the long timescales of evolution. Radiometric dating as a method itself has serious flaws, so arguing that it is reliable at all is debatable.

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates) What you quoted from the encyclopedia is well understood. Carbon dating is only good for dating organic samples less than 60k years old. Potassium argon is able to go way beyond that. So I can understand acknowledging slight variances with the dates given, but trying to sell a 6000 year old earth is to me, not reasonable.

Radiometric dating is actually just one in a long series of attempts to date the Earth by scientists, and the others all fell apart because scientists incorrectly assumed constant processes at work unchanged by external forces, and assumed that all effects on the processes in question were known (which they weren't). Actually this is excellently seen from a book by one of Evolution's top defenders, G. Brent Dalrymple, who perhaps unintentionally sabotages his own argument for evolution by recapping the past attempts to date the Earth which failed. http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&pg=PA12

Basically you've got an element that decays into another element over a long period of time. But to figure out how long it was decaying you have to assume that you know how much of it there was to begin with based on understanding of how much of it came from the atmosphere, where it came from, etc. You also have to assume that nothing got added during the decay process. If there were different levels of carbon-14 or other isotopes in the atmosphere in the past then scientists believe, then the dating methods will be off. If there were other sources of those isotopes than just atmosphere than scientists believe, those dating methods will be off. If the decay rate wasn't a closed system and got affected by processes such as volcanism, the dating methods will be off. If the element it decayed into could be introduced in another way than just decay over long periods of time, the methods will be off.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal. Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered. Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates) With any type of radiometric dating though it can be similarly altered. You're assuming the daughter isotope levels can be known and weren't influenced by other sources. You have to assume you know how much carbon was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, how much argon there was, etc. Furthermore that nothing added additional amounts. Otherwise you'd be incorrectly assuming how much of the isotope there was to begin decaying originally. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions Volcanism by the way has been shown to alter multiple types of radiometric dating, not just carbon-14 dating but argon dating as well. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal. Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.