Isaiah-smiles

Hey Timbo, I believe this ground has already been covered. I am not much into "circular reasoning", but just to show you, I will answer this post with previous answers;

Rukkus, I apologise for not getting back sooner. It had been awhile since I've checked the boards. And yes, absolutely, Jesus for that moment was separated from God in the stead of all mankind. If you also notice, Jesus did not say it was finished (atoning for our sins) until He experinced that Spiritual death as well as the physical death. But it doesn't end badly, because God assures us that the sacrifice was acceptable by the Ressurrection. I believe that when the Bible mentions Christ as being the "firstborn", it is not just describing His eminance or being the heir of all things, to which I am in agreement with, but, I believe that it tells us that He was the first "born again", because of the fact that He was rejoined with the Father & Holy Spirit. Thus, when we repent and trust Christ's finished work on the cross, then we are "born again" in the sense that the Holy Spirit comes within us to dwell forever. We are never to be separated from God anymore "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Romans 8:16)

Hi Timbo, I have tried to reason with these past several post to convince you, with scripure, that Jesus is God. Lets try a different approach. JW's understanding is that Jesus is actually Michael the Ark Angel. Using the (NWT), as far as I can see, it only mentions Michael five times as: 1) "one of the foremost princes" (Dan. 10:13); 2) "the prince of [Daniel

Acta 2:31 doesn't say anything about Jesus going to hell? Hmmm . . . We must be reading different Bibles. Thanks for the comments, anyway I personally prefer the (KJV) over all the other English translations. "Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption (diaphthora, [dee-af-thor-ah

Well, I think we get into trouble when we start looking at biblical subjects from the point of view of someone's "doctrine" because we begin associating it with a person or movement, rather than just looking to see if it's in the Bible or not. I'm not interested in Copeland's or Hagin's doctrines. I'm interested in whether I can read it for myself in my own Bible. As far as Jesus dying spiritually . . . Since this phrase "spiritually dead" does not occur in the Bible, you would have to first define it before I could answer. Death is not an annialation. No matter how much the body decays and breaks down, There will always be elements of that body whether it be ashes or dust. The Bible also teaches the principal of the soul continuing on, whether it is Heaven or Hell. So, keeping this in mind, the body and soul are separated at death. To me, this is actually the definition of death (separation). The body has life because the soul is in the body. When the soul is "disconnected" to the body we are physically dead and when we are born sinners our spirit is "disconnected" to God's Holy Spirit we are "spiritually dead". Hope this helped.

Hi Timbo, Allow me to make the following presentation; Christ is always misrepresented by the cult groups. This misrepresentation usually takes the form of denying His Deity. In the world of the cults, they either deify man or humanize God. We need to present them with the right Jesus Christ since they have "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). "THE FIRST AND THE LAST" PRESENTATION I would like to title this presentation on the Deity of Christ, "the First and the Last," not only because it uses this term, but also because it uses the first and last chapters of Revelation to prove the point. We begin by reading Revelation 1:8, "

Timbo, What was begun in error will also end in error. I am only going to use one or two of the error(s) that you teach.

I disagree, He wasn't in the "pit" of hell, but rather, in Abraham's Bossom (the side of hades where the Old Testament saints dwelled awaiting the promise of God). The point of time in which Jesus suffered spiritual separation (or death) was while He was on the cross, where He cried; "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). The burden of our sin was upon Him on the cross and the wrath of God upon His Son (because of our sins) was also upon the cross whereby christ said "it is finished". What was finish?? The payment of our eniquities! The thief on the cross to whom Christ said "this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise", Christ, later that day, met the thief in Abraham's Bossom (or paradise), not the pit of hell (the place called "torments"), both places were located in Hades. The purpose of the ressurection is the final phase of our redemption, the glorification of the saints; "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." (Rom. 8:22-25)

1). What is death? Is it soul sleeping, or non-existence or are you existing somewhere else, away from time and space?? ~Jesus IS God, but why can't you grasp the truth that just as a person who have rejected Christ will be SEPARATED from God for all eternalty, likewise, Christ had to suffer a temporary separation from God the Father on behalf of those who belongs to God (through repentance and faith). Why else did Christ, as He suffered on the cross cry; "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

Jesus tells the thief on the cross; "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) Where did He and the thief go that same day? Paradise (to the jewish mind-set, paradise was known as "Abraham's Bossom" while "torments" was where the wicked went) "Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One (Christ) to see corruption (diaphthora {dee-af-thor-ah

Although the question was not directed to me, I hope you will allow me to answer. Yes, Jesus died spiritually when He cried "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt.27:46) . This, I believe was the struggle in the garden when He said, "thy will, not mine be done". You see, God the Son had never, in eternalty past, had been separated from God the Father. Death is actually separation. For example; 1). Physical death is separation of body and soul. 2). Spiritual death is separation from God-- remember in the garden? God told Adam that the day that you eat thereof thou shalt surely die. Well, Adam lived to be 930 years of age, but God was talking about the spiritual death when Adam and Eve would become separated from God and was banned from the garden. Before that, we are told that God would come down in the cool of the evening and fellowship with Adam. You see, Salvation is actually the restoration of our relationship to God, but it cost the precious price of Christ's own blood. 3). Devorce is the end (or death) of a union between husband and wife. 4). Even relationships can die by the action (or sin) of another. Someone becomes offended and stops all communications with the other (separation) In all of these examples what is the catalyst that anitiates the separation? Sin. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom. 5:12), this is in reference to the physical death (the first death). "And the sea gave up the dead(body and soul) which were in it; and death(the grave) and hell(Hades- where the souls of men are kept) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell (body and soul) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death (this is the spiritual death-i.e. separation from God in the lake of fire). 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev.20:13-15). Compare scripture with scripture; "Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One (Christ) to see corruption (diaphthora {dee-af-thor-ah

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45) Besides the actual scripture, just common sense would suggest that (6) days before Adam, the earth was void of life, not to mention "people", according to the Bible.

Tongues-speaking is a subject of widespread Christian interest. Pentecostals and charismatics (which include members of mainline Protestant, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic congregations) practice speaking in tongues as an evidence of spiritual renewal and devotion. Yet, it's not just a Christian experience. Many in the occult and in Eastern Mysticism, both in and out of the New Age movement, also speak in tongues. Regrettably, tongues have become a source of confusion and division among many Christians. This is partly because some tongues- speakers declare it to be a necessary companion to the baptism of the Spirit and see Christians who don't speak in tongues as deficient in spiritual experience. But the fire of this controversy is also fanned by an over-reaction on the part of some noncharismatics. The testimonies of tongues-speakers and the writings of scholars who have studied the phenomenon give us mixed signals. On the one hand, men like John Sherrill tell of instances when they have heard people speak fluently in languages they had never learned. On the other hand, linguists and anthropologists who have investigated these reports have not been able to verify them. The testimony about tongues today is therefore quite mixed. It neither proves nor disproves the practice of miraculous speech in real languages among Christians. If the tongues problem is to be solved, it must be on the basis of what the Bible says. In seeking to eliminate the disruption tongues- speaking was bringing into the church, Paul faced a real problem. He couldn't be there personally to stop someone who started speaking with the counterfeit nonlanguage form of tongues. Many Pentecostal and charis- matic pastors today are frank to admit that they don't accept all tongues-speaking as God-given and that they sometimes ask problem people to refrain from speaking. Besides, Paul probably realized that some of the Corinthian believers were well-meaning people who enjoyed the experience. They might have been devastated if told that their tongues-speaking was not from God. Then too, since the real gift was still present, Paul didn't want to give the impression that all speaking in tongues was to be avoided. He wanted to leave room for the exercise of this gift. Therefore, after expressing some pros and cons about tongues-speaking in which he neither fully endorsed nor totally discouraged the practice, he set forth eight rules for its exercise. Here they are as given in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40: 1). Public tongues-speaking was to benefit and build up the body (v.26). 2). Only two or three were to speak in tongues in a service (vv.27, 30). 3). They were to speak in turn (vv.27, 30). 4). Tongues were to be spoken only when interpreted (vv.27, 28). 5). Discerning people were to weigh the message to determine its validity (v.29). 6). Women were not to speak in tongues (v.34). 7). Tongues were not to be forbidden but to be given a lower place than prophecy (v.39). 8). A proper and orderly atmosphere in church services was to be maintained (v.40). Why did God enable people to speak in languages they had never learned? The apostle Paul answered this question by giving us its primary and secon- dary purposes. He wrote, "Therefore tongues are for a sign" (1 Cor. 14:22) and declared that as a spiritual gift it was bestowed on "each one for the profit of all" (1 Cor. 12:7). The Sign Function. While we cannot find in Acts a specific statement that tongues-speaking functioned as a sign, we can easily see how it did. On the Day of Pentecost the tongues-speaking was the phenomenon that drew the crowd, and it undoubtedly was a powerful factor in opening the hearts of Jewish people to Peter's message. It served as a sign, authenticating the apostles as representatives of the risen Christ. We can also assume that it was an assuring sign to the apostles themselves. They could see it as a partial fulfillment of Christ's promise, "And these signs will follow those who believe: . . . they will speak with new tongues . . ." (Mark 16:17). They may have even taken the fact that they spoke in 15 Gentile dialects as a sign that the good news was, as Jesus had said, for all the world (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8). The sign function of tongues-speaking is also quite obvious in the other two incidents recorded by Luke. When the Roman centurion and his household (Gentiles who had not become proselytes of the Jewish faith) believed, they spoke in tongues. They did it in the presence of "those of the circumcision who believed" (Acts 10:45), Jewish Christians. Peter saw this as a sign that these Gentiles were to be baptized because they "have received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47). It was a sign to these Jewish believers that Gentiles were fellow-members with them in the body of Christ. The tongues-speaking of the 12 people in Acts 19:1-7 was undoubtedly a sign to them that they had received the Holy Spirit (whom they hadn't yet heard of) and a sign of Paul's authority to everyone present. When we turn from Acts to 1 Corinthians, we find Paul listing tongues among the sign gifts (12:7-11) and declaring, "Therefore tongues are for a sign" (14:22). This gives us a solid basis for concluding that even though tongues-speaking occurred in church services here and was termed a "gift," it still retained its sign function. Paul didn't rule out the possibility that uninterpreted tongues might have had some value for self-edification. But interpreted tongues went a step further and brought a degree of spiritual benefit to the church. And Paul never suggested that people seek the gift of tongues for the purpose of edifying either themselves or others. In this role it was far inferior to prophecy--declaring a message from God in plain, everyday speech. To emphasize this point, Paul proceeded to list seven ways in which uninterpreted tongues were less valuable to the spiritual welfare of the church than prophecy. 1). Speaking in uninterpreted tongues edified only the speaker, not the church (14:1-6). 2). Speaking in tongues could lead to confusion; prophecy brought illumination (14:7-12). 3). Speaking in tongues did not benefit the mind of either speaker or hearer; prophecy brought understanding (14:13-15). 4). Praying in tongues, unlike prayer in a known language, didn't benefit those who heard it (14:16,17). 5). Speaking in tongues could be an indication of spiritual immaturity--a tendency to prefer the more showy gift of tongues to the more solid gift of prophecy (14:20). 6). Hearing unknown tongues was once a punishment for the Jews because they had despised the plain words of Isaiah (14:21,22). 7). Too much tongues-speaking in a public service could be a hindrance to the salvation of nonbelievers present; unlimited prophecy could be the means of bringing conviction and salvation (14:23-25). It follows that edification through tongues--for oneself or the church--is not its major purpose. Proclaiming and hearing God's message in common speech is far superior and desirable. Did tongues cease before AD 100? They probably did. The testimony of the New Testament and church history strongly point in this direction. The writer of Hebrews used the past tense when he declared that God had confirmed the apostolic witness with "signs and wonders," "various miracles," and "gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 2:1-4). Tongues-speaking would certainly come under the category of "signs and wonders." Moreover, church historians have found no evidence of tongues-speaking among the church fathers of the second century. The practice was present only among a few heretical followers of Montanus. And until recent times, tongues-speaking has been unknown among the vast majority of the Lord's people. Even though there is good reason to believe that tongues-speaking ceased with the ending of the apostolic age, the Bible doesn't specifically state that this is the case. Many use 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 to prove that the miracle of tongues- speaking is an absolute impossibility today, but this passage isn't conclusive. Some take the words "when that which is perfect has come" (13:10) to be a reference to the New Testament. They point out that the Greek word used in relation to the gifts of prophecy and knowledge is katargeo in the passive voice. They say that these gifts were "rendered inoperative" by the acceptance of the New Testament and that tongues simply stopped (pauo) at some point before the completion of the New Testament Scriptures. Some Bible scholars believe that this verse is referring to the maturity of the church, while others maintain that it is the second coming of Christ. The logic for all these views is good, but none of them can be proven with absolute certainty. I believe that it's best to see the expression "that which is perfect" as a reference to eternity. It is only then that we will see "face to face" and "know just as I also am known" (13:12). In summary, we can advance solid reason for believing that tongues ceased at the close of the apostolic age. But we cannot prove that they did on the basis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. IN CONCLUSION What about private praying in tongues? Many Christians who never speak in tongues publicly are enthusiastic about using tongues as a private prayer language. They admit that they don't understand what they are praying, but they claim that it makes them sense God's presence and leads them into real words of praise, adoration, petition, and intercession. They support this practice from certain verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul spoke about speaking in tongues "to God" in verses 2 and 28. And he specifically referred to praying in tongues in verses 14 through 17. It seems very unlikely, however, that the apostle Paul was either referring to or encouraging a valid private prayer language. Although such an interpretation can be read into the text, it doesn't seem natural to the flow of what he was saying. If Paul did tell his readers to practice uninterpreted tongues in private rather than in public, he certainly wasn't emphasizing this private use. His emphasis was that they were not to do it in public. To interpret Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14 as an affirmation of private tongues-speaking is to miss his point. It is like a child saying that because his parents told him to keep his mess in his own room, they are condoning and encouraging a messy life. When in reality, the parents just didn't want the whole family to have to live with it. Furthermore, it's important to realize that Paul was in a position of having to regulate the intrusion of counterfeit tongues in the church. Certainly the Holy Spirit was not giving utterance to that which was so unprofitable and disorderly. But because the apostle was not on the scene in Corinth to pass judgment on each case, and because the real gift of tongues was still in existence, he did a very wise thing. He gave inspired principles for regulating tongues so that it would not continue to be a disruptive force in the church. That is far different from saying that Paul was affirming and dignifying a new way of praying--a new spiritual gift that would enable us to talk to God without using our minds. This is not consistent with the way the Lord asks us to approach Him, nor with the purpose of tongues as a supernatural sign for people whose faith needed to be kindled or developed.

The woman's role is not authoritive in the church. God loves women as much as He does men. Women are as important to the home, church, and society as men are. In Jesus Christ, women enjoy the same spiritual position and blessings before God as men do. This does not mean, though, there is to be no difference in men and women in their appearance and roles. There is a basic truth which needs to be restated in the church and society today: Men and women are different! Men and women were made for different roles. The New Testament affirms that men are to be the leaders in the home, church, and state. Women were not created to rule these divine institutions; men were. The prophet Isaiah was condemning Israel when he said women ruled over them (Isa. 3:12). In the church, according to the Bible, no woman is qualified to be a pastor or a deacon or in any other leadership position over men. Who says? God says!

We are surrounded by claims of religious authority

Jesus was more than just a real person. If He is who He claimed to be. If He was indeed Immanuel (God with us), wrapped in flesh and dwelling amoung men then Darwin's theory would indeed be in trouble. Christianity was not a religious movement based upon ideology but upon events which had to have actually happened. The claims could not have been presented right there in Jerusalem and throughout Judea (that Jesus of Nazareth had healed the sick, opened blind eyes, raised the dead and Himself resurrected, leaving behind an empty tomb) unless the events had verifiably occurred. For that reason Jesus told His disciples to begin their preaching in Jerusalem, to establish the church there first of all. That short walk outside the city wall to verify that the tomb which all Jerusalem well knew had been guarded by Roman soldiers was indeed empty must have been taken by many skeptics. The word quickly spread in confirmation of this greatest of miracles; it had put God's stamp of approval upon the claims of Jesus Christ. Paul appealed to the knowledge of the facts possessed by the Roman officials whom he faced. Felix, the governor, had "more perfect knowledge of that way" (Acts 24:22). Far from seeing anything contrary to the truth in Paul's testimony, "Felix trembled" as Paul reasoned with him (v 25). And to King Agrippa, Paul declared, "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26) For any man to have invented the New Testament after the time of Christ, and to have attempted to cause it to be received, would have been as if a man had written an account of the Revolution, and of the celebration of this day [July 4, 1776 ]...when [in fact] no revolution was ever heard of, and no one had ever celebrated the Fourth of July. Nor, when such a festival was once established, would it be possible to introduce any account of its origin essentially different from the true one. But the case of...Christian[ity] is even stronger; because we have several different institutions which must have sprung up at its origin; because baptism and the Lord's Supper have occurred so much more frequently; and because the latter has always been considered the chief rite of a religion to which men have been more attached than to liberty or to life. What about Historical Resources outside the Bible? There is no refuting these arguments, which secular historical evidence also supports. There is overwhelming corroboration of the New Testament in the non-Christian writings of that period, including even those of Christianity's enemies: The Talmud [compilation of oral rabbinic tradition dating to about a.d.200]...speaks of Christ, and of several of the disciples, by name...of His crucifixion...that He performed many and great miracles.... [Flavius] Josephus [Jewish historian c. a.d. 37-100] lived at the time many of these events...happened and was present at the destruction of Jerusalem...[and] he confirms the accuracy of...all that is said [in the New Testament]...of Pharisees, and Sadducees, and Herodians...[and of Christ's death and resurrection]. Tacitus [Roman historian and proconsul of Asia, c. a.d.55-117] tells us that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate...under Tiberius, as a malefactor; that the people called Christians derived their name from him; that this superstition arose in Judea, and spread to Rome, where...only about thirty years after the death of Christ, the Christians were very numerous...[and] that the Christians were subjected to contempt and the most dreadful sufferings...some were crucified; while others, being daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and were thus burnt to death. This account is confirmed by Suetonius, and by Martial and Juvenal.... Pliny [the younger] was propraetor of Pontus and Bithynia [a.d.112]....Many [Christians] were brought before him for their faith in Christ...[and] he condemned them to death.... How strong must have been that primitive evidence for Christianity which could induce persons of good sense, in every walk of life, to abandon the religion of their ancestors, and thus, in the face of imperial power, to persist in their adherence to one who had suffered the death of a slave! Fanatics have always been willing to die out of loyalty even to a secular leader or political ideology or in hope of attaining paradise thereby (the case with Muslim suicide bombers today). Even Ingersoll, however, the famous nineteenth-century atheist, admitted that no sane man would die for a lie. Yet the apostles and early Christian martyrs died testifying to facts (the miracles, resurrection, etc.) when they could have saved their lives by denying them. Miracles? Hasn't science proved that miracles cannot occur? On the contrary, science can only deal with natural phenomena; and miracles, by very definition, are supernatural. In fact, miracles are inevitable if God is to interfere at all in the downward course of human affairs and of nature. Whenever God reaches in from outside to effect anything that is not according to the normal course of events (such as the Incarnation, salvation or raising the dead), it is a miracle. Christianity isn't embarrassed by the recital of miracles in the Bible. On the contrary, Christianity (unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, et al.) requires miracles and is based upon the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Christ. Next to that, feeding the multitude or healing the sick or even walking on water follow easily. The Bible teaches that faith must be founded upon fact, not upon feelings, intuition or emotion--much less upon blind submission to some religious authority. Paul wrote, "Prove all things" (1Thes 5:21). God himself says, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Is 1:18) and has provided abundant factual evidence in the universe around us and in His Word. Jesus, after His resurrection, "shewed himself alive...by many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3).

The Genesis account reveals to us that Adam & Eve bore more children than just Cain and Abel. After the death of Abel by his own brother's hand, Seth was born and continued the Godly lineage as Cain was the father of the ungodly, although Cain's generations did achieve much as far as building cities, inventing string instruments, developed the working of metals and I think by the 7th or 8th generation they had developed the bow and arrow. So, Cain's lineage did achieve much but they didn't worship the one and true God. This reminds me so much of the world we live in today with all the advancement of technology, but the majority of the world is going to hell in a hand basket due to their rejection of the messiah. So, Adam had all the genetic code for all of mankind. Man lived longer then, before the flood, I believe because of (2) reasons: 1.) Atmospheric pressure 2.) and that sin shorten man's lifespan as each generation went by. Look at the drop in age after the flood. I believe also that Adams genetic make-up was similar to Noah and his three sons. In them was all the genetic code for all the ethenic groups that scattered from the tower of Babel when God confused their langage. What began to take place afterwards was what scientist refer to as "micro-evolution" not "macro-evolution". In other words, God had put the genetic information for them to be able to adapt to their environment (i.e. hotter climates in most cases produced darker pigments, etc,). And as each group separated themselves from the others that did not speak their langage their geneic pool became very limited in so that they began to develope certain characteristics as well. We also see this in the animal kingdom as well. We're told that every kind (not every species as in "micro-evolution") animal that was "air breathing" went up into the ark two by two (male and female). For example, it only took (2) dogkind animals to eventually produce; dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc,. Noah would not have the room for every single species of every animal kind. They had already posessed the necessary genetic code for every species. Look for example at the finches (birds), there are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of species of just one birdkind. So, the first answer is, always Believe God. He doesn't ask us to check our brains at the door when we come by faith to Him. But remember, It is impossible to please God without faith. Sometimes even scientists plays the Devil's advocate and tries to undermine christianity, but in due time God proves them wrong. Cain married a relative, more likely a distant cousin or niece. Abel married nobody, remember? he was dead because Cain slew him.

Pretty interesting, I believe if we continue to watch Israel and how she wants peace even to go as far as dealing with known terrorist, it's only a matter of time before she receives the prince to come who will come in peacefully and in his own name. Even Mahmoud Abbas became heavily involved in underground Palestinian politics, joining a number of exiled Palestinians in Qatar, where he was Director of Personnel in the emirate's Civil Service. That was in the mid 50's. Then, Throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Abbas traveled with Arafat and the rest of the PLO leadership in exile to Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. But, I'm sure you're already aware of that, I'm not tell'n you anything new.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23) "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel

With as many craters in the moon, I'm surprised that it isn't Swiss cheese.....Nah, chedder is better.

When I said, "Could God have created life elsewhere? Certainly, but the Bible is largely silent on this subject", I realized that I wasn't making myself clear and I apologise. What I was saying is that God can do anything, even creating life elsewhere, but tha Bible doesn't say specifically that He had or had not. BUT, if you read the rest of the paragraph (which you stated that you did) then you would realise also that the scripture that God did give us has a strong indication that He didn't. And along with the scripture that was provided, I offered logical and common sense to show that life on other planets are unlikely. So, let me make this clear, I do not acknowledge that life exist on other planets due to what is in the scriptures, not what is missing. I went back and re-read the previous posts within this thread and found several contradictions. And, by the way, not once did I say that you couldn't "voice" your opinion. You are simply putting words in my mouth. Here is a contradition from you; in the first quote you said, "and even YOU acknowledge that it is possible" but in the second quote you stated; "just because you believe it is not likely". So, maybe I did make myself clear and you misunderstood? Another contradiction; On (04-17-06) you said; But on (04-18-06) you tell me: In future posts, if I disagree with you, it doesn't indicate that you can't voice your opinion. Quite the opposite, it's what these boards are all about. Just remember, I'm permitted to voice my opinion as well.

Did you not read the last paragragh of my post? Which Genesis 1:14 states that the heavenly bodies were made