The_Patriot21

I read it. I just dont agree with it, fully. At least not when it pertains to Matthew 1, which I still hold to be a literal geneology. But even so, it really makes no difference-I'm not dead set on "4,004" years, I believe theres some room for error, but not a lot, even most non-Biblical archaelogists suggest mans only been on this planet for around 6-10,000 years. As far as the word begat, this is from your definition 1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail a) (Qal) 1) to bear, bring forth Looks to me, like it says exactly what I said it to say-if so and so begat so and so, it beans so and so beared that person, that that person, was actually born to who the text said it was. Sure, theres other definitions, if you read on, but its all by context-if the context of the passage is talking about someone being born to someone, well, it looks pretty literal to me. And I apologize if you thought I was strawmanning anyone, I was not, at least that was not my intent. My intent was simply to disagree.

aaah I see what you mean by telescoping, again, someones attempt to put more years into the Bible that arnt really there. Actually if you dive into the hebrew, so and so begat so and so, really does mean, they had that person. I can go through that, but heres the thing, the Bible gave a complete list of Christs descendents-saying that there was more, is taking a view, outside of the Bible, and trying to fit it into, the Bible. and while I realize what Ussher did-it makes no difference, what he did, or what he did not do, what makes a difference, is what the bible says, or does not say, so when I say it does not matter what Ussher said, it doesn't really matter, the Bible defends itself. Even, if you don't take the geneological timeline literal, it still only puts between 4-6000 years between the time of Christ, and the creation of the world. The Bible, is a very literal book-it is Gods truth to us. Sure, there are parts that are figurative in nature, and many allegories, but they are all there to speak to the literal truth of the Bible. The geneology, in matthew 1:1, is a literal, geneology of Christs bloodline, from the time of Abraham, up to Jesus. The reason for that, is twofold is because geneology, was very important to the jewish people, knowing where you come from. If there are gaps, in that geneology, as the "telescoping" theory, suggests, then you cant prove that is your geneology. Second, it has to do with prophecy. Jesus was to be of the bloodline of Abraham-which is easy enough to prove, since all Israelites were-but Jesus also had to be of the line of David-which is harder to prove, especially, if there are gaps in it. The only way to prove, 100%, that Jesus was of the line of David, was to have a complete, and literal, geneology, and Matthew 1 was that complete, and literal geneology, there was no telescoping in it whatsoever, and there was absolutly nothing in the Bible to suggest that there is.

If you follow the geneologies candice, its 4000 years before Christ, and about 2000 years from Christs birth until now. That leaves a total age of around 6000 years. This has nothing to do with Ussher, but with the geneologies in the Bible. Now, explain to me exactly what you mean by telescoping?

It has nothing to do with being a surprise or not back2, it has more to the fact that we don't know. On the same token, it wont take us by surprise, because we are always ready for it. The verse refers to Him coming as a theif in the night-as in we dont know when, its referring to His method of return, not our reaction to it. We are always ready-regardless of when He comes back. We dont have to know the when, to be ready.

It is important to realize that conditions were different and people lived longer into the hundreds of years and much of how the Bible relates issues is telescoped. Take geneaologies for example: Geneaologies don't give us every single person in a given family line. They only give us the highlights. It's called "telescoping." So when it says that so and so begat this person, they may have actually been several generations apart. Where did all of the other people come from? How did Cain find a wife in nod if Adam and Eve were the first parents and Cain was their direct son? The answer is lies in the fact that we cannot simply project our experience on to the Scriptures. They lived longer and thus could have more children. The Bible doesn't tell us how long it was between events. We tend to read thse stories as if they events were really close together, when they were not. Plenty of time had elapsed for cities to be built and civilization to be established. Shiloh, I agree. Though (and I hate to take this off topic) telescoping permits creation to be much earlier than 4000 BC, right? if you follow the Biblical timeline, no, it puts creation anywhere between 4-6000 years before Christ, with 6000 being the most liberal number you can come up with, and its all dependent on how long adam and eve were in the garden, which most scholars put at less then 150 years (how old they were when they had cain and abel I do believe)

I might like to add, I also like how morgan ignored all the times where a incident didnt turn into a mass murder due to someone being there to shoot back.

and yet another instance where if someone had brought a .357 mag with them, that number would have been much smaller.

I hadnt gotten 20 minutes to sit down and watch the debate till today, hence the long time in my reply. Piers Morgan had a lot of problems with his argument, the most annoying was just not letting the other guy speak. (typical rule for liberals, if the other guys saying the truth, dont let him say it) but other issues, you brought it up, was the 100 rounds a minute firing rate, which is actually a lie. I mean maybe, if you had a 100 round mag, and you just sat there and pulled the trigger, you might get that many off, but if you want to maintain any kind of accuracy whatsoever, your looking at around 45-50 rounds a minute, and most of your AR-15s, especially your lower grade ones, you can only fire 12-15 rounds quickly before having to let the barrel cool, otherwise it gets to hot, and you have no accuracy whatsoever and you risk damaging the gun. To get the 100+ rounds a minute you would have to have the military model-which, with the full auto (and not taking into count reloads) can cycle through 800 a minute, but those are illegal to the civilian market. As far as the practicalitys of AR-15s, for the protection of the second amendment, and the ability to form a militia, that right there makes them a practical reason to own one. But they also make effective riot control weapons (yes, they have even been used in the US, by US civilians, to protect their own homes and families against riots) and the AR-15 makes a great hunting weapon, especially for deer and the like. The gun is light, easy to transport, easy to aim, is very accurate, and when using good expanding point bullets, has decent range and can take down a good sized deer or antelope at range, without taking out the meat.

unfortunate defeat for those with clear heads.

it was not the seventh or eighth-the plants, and gardens, were made on the third, the animals, and people, on the sixth. Chapter 2, is simply a summary, of the 7 days of creation (the seventh is when God rested) as well as the specifics of why and where God made the garden of Eden, and where He put Adam and Eve.

I like the guy doing the fact check-hes right, its better to look at percentages, not just the numbers. I find it amusing, however, that liberals like piers morgan-cannot even let their opponents speak-they have to constantly interrupt halfway through, and usually without an intelligent reply, just to call them a liar. I Enjoyed Pratts ability to keep his calm, and not insult back-I can respect him for that, as well as 100% agree with the stance hes making.

well, it wouldve been nice if he had linked it so we knew which incident he was speaking of, there are a lot of knifing incidents every day.

the problem is with that line of thought, that the eve gene is only passed down woman to woman if I understand that correctly. The other flaw, is that even if it did come from noahs wife, noahs wife, had to have gotten it from somewhere, and since eve was the first woman, it had to have come from her. On the other note, if the apologists are relying on this gene to prove the flood, they need to get out in nature-theres plenty of scientific evidence to support the flood theory, without going to genetics.

both Candice, Noahs wife, came from Eve. On the sixth day, God made adam and eve, and all was good. And then they sinned, and were thrown out of the garden, from their they had cain, abel, and seth, as well as many sons and daughters, and they continued to procreate, until noahs time, when God wiped out the entire world with the flood, leaving just noahs family, who procrated, so on and so forth. So, if we all have a gene in common with noahs wife, its natural to assume we have it from Eve, because that is where Noahs wife got it from. It is important to note, that Noahs wife was not the only woman on board the ark-his sons wives, were also on the ark.

the verse is more referring to the fact that we wont know back2, just like we don't know when a thief will break into our homes, we will not know when Christ will return, so in that sense He will come like a thief in the night, bopeep had the right understanding of that verse.

I think she was referring to the anti-christ, as in when satan takes control of the whole world, omega.

to answer your question blessed, no I have never taken another mans life, and I hope and pray that I never have to. With that being said, in the right circumstances, I feel I could if I absolutly had to, but I have no wish to. I do own and carry a gun, but on the same note, I work very hard to avoid situations where it might be necessary to use it.

my opinion, if hes going to look like a woman he shouldnt get offended when people think hes a woman. If he doesn't want to be called a woman he shouldnt dress like it. He either needs to get rid of the makeup or grow a thicker skin. just my two cents.

yes, or at least tell us what your talking about.

depends how old school you go tinkey. There was a time where you had to have a chaperone any time there was a male and female together. Dating, courting or otherwise.

Speaks to the heart. We should never want to kill anyone, for any reason, nor am I condoning that action. Even if its justified, doesn't mean we should seek it. We see examples, especially in the OT where the Bible says its ok to take life, and examples where men did indeed kill, and use weapons, but we on the other hand, Jesus telling Peter to put his sword away. It seems a contradiction, but its not. The OT outlines when its ok to defend oneself and use lethal force 1: in self defense of yourself and family. 2: in defense of those who cannot protect themselves, the innocent. and 3: when God commands it. Peter, did not fulfill any of those 3-he probably thought he was fulfilling the first two, but he wasnt-Jesus was not defenseless. Now with that being said, Jesus also taught love. He didn't want a bunch of radicals, running around, strapping bombs to their chests in His name, which is what Islam encourages. While the Bible does say that in instances the use of lethal force is ok-its not something that should ever be sought after. I believe, if you combine the teachings of the OT concerning lethal force-with Jesus love, you get the principle behind the term "discretion is the better part of valor" Peter, in this passage did not use discretion. A wise man does not seek out violence-but neither does he run from it.

Hello Elhanan, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement but can you show me scripture, in particular anything Jesus said, that might indicate He agrees with Mr Schaeffer. There are some that indicate Jesus doesn't agree with him eg. Matthew 5:39, 10:28 Thank you. Not necessarily Jesus words, but they are in the Bible Psalm 82:4, Proverbs 24:11, Ezekiel 33:6 are all worth looking at. I realize they arnt words of Christ-but as I pointed out to noob earlier, all scripture is God Inspired, and Since Jesus was God, He wouldn't contradict anything He taught in the OT.

well blessed, I guess to me, it doesnt or shouldnt change our perception, or what we get from the story, because I don't think Peter was aiming for the ear-I think he missed (I think his goal was the whole head) As far the need for defense, I think, there was a reason for swords-I mean seriously, what purpose, did swords play? A sword, unlike a gun, cannot be used for hunting, in that time as word was used for two things-as an offensive weapon, or a defensive weapon. There really wasn't much use for it otherwise, so self defense, or the use of weapons, really isn't outside of the paremeters of this discussion if you ask me. As far as Peter being on the offensive or the defensive, Im going to say he was not on the offensive. Peter did not go to the temple or seek out the servant, they came for him, and for his master. They came to arrest Jesus, it is only logical to assume that they also had weapons. Peter, saw a bunch of men, armed to the teeth, coming to take the Lord-his actions, were defensive in nature, they just didn't fit with Gods plan at the time, and in reality, you brought up a good point. That Jesus, did not ask, or need protection. Peter wasn't defending himself, or anyone that was defenseless, nor was he acting under Christs orders. He was carrying a sword, which Jesus obviously approved of, and Jesus did not order him to get rid of it. So, your point that it is not a argument for defense of the defenseless is a factual argument-Jesus was not defenseless, though Peter thought that he was doing the right thing. Its not a argument for pacifism either-its a argument for wise use of the weapon, to make sure that if you carry or own a weapon, that you seek God first in the proper use of it.

by the modern definition, sex is often included, but it isnt required for dating. Courting, does involve a lot more commitment. Its not just seeing if they like each other-its going together with the ultimate goal of getting married. Theres a lot more commitment-its basically, they want to marry each other, they just havent bought the ring and set the date yet, its spending time with each other, not to see if they like each other-because they already do-but to work out a lot of the relationship kinks, or at least all that they can-before they get more serious. Me and my wife courted, and going back, I wouldnt have it any other way.