Hawkins

It's never about luck. It's all about resistance. The gospel shall have reached every corner of this world if not because of human/satan resistance. You need to take side sometimes. A truth can stand out of a million falsehood, as someone named satan can have the freewill to create millions of religions. However if you are willing to follow logic, you can see the truth. I can present you logically about what it is and how Christianity can be differentiated from any other religions.

In Christianity, that's reasonable. Because by a covenant between God and men, humans will have to rely on faith (thus no evidence) to be saved. That is, if you already know his existence, it could simultaneously mean that you are no longer savable. He will have to hide Himself across the timeline of humanity (as mentioned in the Book of Revelation).

Religion is more about an advocate stating what could possibly happen after our physical death. No humans can present evidence beyond that point, as evidence is all about how humans capable of physically entering the area to gather it. So your question here is literally a paradox.

If God is evil while he's God, it all relies on whether he would give you the chance to find out. More likely he won't give you the truth, as this is part of why he's evil. In front of a god who is evil, you can't even confirm what you got is a "find out" or not!

If God is evil, there's not much humans can do. We do only what we can, under our capabilities. So you don't even need to consider that God is evil.

Defending the gospel is a way of fighting the wolves. Taking care of His sheep is a command from Jesus Christ. Introducing false doctrines is the way how Satan tries to lead God's sheep astray.

We don't know that. It's an assumption instead! In secular terms, this assumption makes sense until it's refutable. However, this is not a proof but an assumption.

Can science demonstrate that our universe was stable all the times from the very beginning till now? We don't even know what gravity is in its nature. What we can speculate is universe is stable NOW, and gravity follows law NOW. Projecting this to the long past or to the long future is outside the scope of science! Science is almost exclusively about how things repeat themselves RIGHT NOW!

New earth can exist in another location of this universe. Our universe is a vast one that you can create as many earths as you wish, with each isolated by a space that any civilization won't be able to reach another within the life-span of our universe. This shouldn't be difficult for an almighty God. However, in the book of Revelation the future Heaven is called "new earth and new heaven". It is thus possible that the next earth we are going to live may exist in another space or another universe.

It boils down to the question that can the almighty God not using evolution at all in creating humans? If not then He's not almighty. If He can then why bother evolution, as the most important part of creation is about a soul, instead of a body! That being said. God created an environment facilitating adaptation such that species can continue by adapting into changing environments. There's no evidence (if you like it this way) or whatsoever showing that organic materials were (past tense, which supposed to happen billions of years ago) formed from inorganic materials. No evidence showing that critical organs such as human brain, human heart and etc. were (past tense, which is supposed to happen long ago). To make more clearly; If you said that inorganic materials were turned to organic materials 10 billion years ago, please submit your evidence that it was so. You evidence thus should be present all the times from 10 billion years ago till now. You discovered a piece of evidence lasting for 10 billion years. The same, if you claim that a human brain was formed 20 million years ago, just present your evidence which should have present 20 million years ago till now. You discovered a piece of evidence which last for 20 million years.

It's almost apples and oranges. Crime scene evidence almost can't stand alone without depending on witnessing. That's why whenever there's a reliable witness testifying that you are absent from the scene, whatever so-called evidence can't be used against you. Court cases are usually attempts of logical deductions but inviting a majority vote from the juries. It only means that the same "logical deduction" may lead to different conclusions by different humans. A science shouldn't behave this way, alternatively speaking something behaves this way is not a science.

They have a reason to assume so. However the proposal itself is a 'bad' argument. It only means that under the circumstance we have to make a bad argument scientifically because it's all we humans can do! Liger is a hybrid of lion and tiger. However after one million year from nows what ToE can come up with is that liger is a result of evolution. In a strict scientific sense, it only means that ToE itself is not falsifiable. ToE thus is not a science in a strict sense. We (our scientists) have to propose so simply because that's all we can do. We can't scientifically reproduce the case, such that "proposing so" remains "what we can do". This proposal however can be just as 'bad' as any argument you are trying to refute here. Plus that the 'bad' is a kind of deception (i.e., appears to be scientifically sound but 'bad').

Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion. If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works. This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly. That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell. An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!

The first honesty one should deal with that humans are not omniscient. We can't know everything, and that we don't need to understand everything to believe God. It's a fallacious argument to say that because one can't honestly understand quantum physics such that he should reject science as a whole. Most so-called contractions or logical flaws are mainly due to the lack of understanding of the historical situations. We tend to use today's environment as a reference to speculate what is said about what happened 2000 years ago, thus we can't be objectively know what is actually said. For an example, I just had an argument with others about the two genealogical accounts of Jesus. I simply pointed out the possibility that humans never knew clearly how genealogies were written in different cultures. Genealogies thus can include step sons or even adapted sons. The other side however argued that I have no evidence to say so. "Evidence" is a typical argument from atheists which they consider as honestly logical. You need evidence to support your claims. This, at a first glance, seems to be as honest and logical and straight forward as it can be. However this argument is deceptively flawed. I can't help but ask why a plain and honest and seemingly logical argument such as "you need evidence to support your claims" can turn out to be a logical flaw which thus is deceptive and satanic as it can be as it appears to be so honestly logical. The nature of history is that it is composed of human testimonies which can hardly be evidenced. History is the recordings of the 0.00000001% events or historical figures which were considered famous by the public or an authority back then. It is the recordings of the 0.00000001% activities of these 0.00000001% famous persons. Mathematically it is as insignificant as can be ignored. Do you remember what you ate in last Christmas. What evidence can you find to support what you ate last Christmas or on any particular day in your life? It's virtually none. You have no evidence of your past meals (you may have had a million in your life), nor have the 70 billion humans on earth (not to account those in the long past of human history). If I said that "it is possible that you ate turkey that day", what's the point of asking me for evidence to support such a "claim", while none of the 70 billion humans ever had any evidence of what they ate? That said. By my honest speculation Satan is behind the atheistic argument of "show me the evidence".

God told me this. Humans don't know what faith is, and humans don't know what science is. Basically, faith is the only way which humans have to rely on to reach a truth of any kind. (Surprised?) Science is all about a very much specific kind of truth. Science is never equivalent to "all kinds of truth" as today's humans perceive. Science is exclusively about a phenomenon which is repeatable. Most truth however are not repeatable thus science is futile about them. An example, do you still remember what you yourself did today but a year ago? Most of us humans can't remember unless there was something truly special happened that day. We 7 billion humans on earth. We thus have 70 billion cases on a single day where humans are futile about what could have possibly happened!!!!!!!!! In the end, humans don't even know what humans themselves are. Humans are basically futile both the past (such as what you yourself just did today but a year ago), and they are futile about the future. However humans can rely on one thing to reach these both ends, that is, past and future by employing the power of faith. Faith is almost the only and exclusive way for humans to reach the past. Humans have to rely on putting faith in human accounts of testimonies (which are called history) to get to know what could possibly happened in the long past. Humans even have to employ faith to reach a scientific truth. We all know for a fact that black holes exist. Yet when I tried ask for evidence, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence before they "KNOW FOR A FACT" that black holes exist. Now makes you so sure that black holes exist while you don't have the evidence yourself? In a nutshell, humans don't know what they are doing! Here's what God said: Isaiah 6:9 (NIV2011) He said, “Go and tell this people: “ ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

Paul is not a Torah observant, as the term observant can be a very misleading term. A Torah observant could mean someone insists on abiding the Mosaic Law to a high extent and tend to reject Christianity. Thus it shouldn't be used to describe Paul. The verse I gave you is to say that Paul shouldn't be described as an observant as it's not a proper term to use. You are confused about what Law and covenants are. Everyone, both Jews and gentles, are born with and bound by an older covenant. The New Covenant doesn't come with your birth. It's a covenant chosen with consent when you are grown up. You as gentile is bound by an old covenant (could well be from Noah), you thus need to act by your conscience and moral code to the best as you are aware of. However, this won't save you because you are expected to fail at some point. You need the New Covenant for your salvation. Even Christians need to deal with their sins, it is because you may consider covenants have the 'overlapping' effect. Even when you are a Christian saved by your faith, you need to act by conscience and moral code. It is a misunderstand to say because you are a Christian thus you have no law thus you can break every single piece of law acting upon you. This is never a biblical idea. To put it another way, you need to always act in accordance to the covenant born and bound with you. As gentiles, the law given to us through an older covenant is the "law written in our hearts" which is our conscience and moral code. Gentiles: - Need to act in accordance to conscience and moral code (from an older covenant, possibly from Noah, which is applicable to all mankind) - Need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved (from the New Covenant) Jews: - Need to act in accordance to conscience and moral code (from an older covenant, possibly from Noah, which is applicable to all mankind) - Need to observe the Mosaic Law (from the covenant brought by Moses, which is only applicable to the Jews and early converts) - Need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved (from the New Covenant) Anyone (Jews or gentiles) will be judged by an older covenant on the Judgment Day if the New Covenant is not chosen with consent. That said, Jews need to observe Mosaic Law even when you are a Jewish Christian. Or rather to say, Jewish Christians can choose to observe Mosaic Law as that's part of the covenant they are born and bound with. After they become Christians they also have the option not to observe Mosaic Law. In this case, they subject themselves to the same covenant as gentiles' and have made themselves literally gentile Christians. To sum it up from the perspective of God's Law and covenants, a Jew is; - one who is by bloodline a Jew - circumcised on the 8th day if he's a male (today's practice is till several months after birth) - he has a consent to abide by Mosaic Law when he becomes an adult (today only the Orthodox Jews choose to abide by Mosaic Law, from what I heard) - he must not stand in the way of Christianity (by the definition of Rev. 2:9, Rev. 3:9) Argument however may rise from how strict or to what extent the Jews should abide by the Mosaic Law. The Bible said that the proclaiming of Law and Prophets is till John the Baptist, since then the Gospel shall be preached. This is so because observing the OT laws won't bring in salvation. It's no point to force the gentile to observe the OT laws. Even the Jews should not practice OT customs if these customs affect the correctness of the faith of the gentiles. That's basically what Paul's deeds are about. Moreover, the verse provided by you is between Paul and James when Paul was in Jerusalem. It's more about the queries from the Jews in Jerusalem about what customs should be adapted by those Jews living among gentiles outside Palestine but in Minor Asia (Paul's region of ministry). Paul's stance is basically whatever the Jews (who are living among the gentiles) do should be something building up the gentiles (i.e., their Christian faith) and beneficial to them. Like I said, Paul was given a tough job. And I don't think "Torah observant" is a proper term to describe him when his stance is that he can give up any Jewish customs standing in the way of Christianity. He's a "New Covenant observant" instead if you have to put it this way.

No, Paul was not a Torah observant after his conversion. He even argued with Peter over the Jewish practice of not eating with the Gentiles. Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV2011) 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? There's no contraction between modern Christians' ideas and early church practices. Paul was given a tough job simply because all the early churches in the Minor Asia area were a mixture of Jews and gentiles. Paul has to stand tough in fulfilling the requirements set forth by the New Covenant, just as how he confronted Peter himself in the verses above. At the same time, he has to make certain compromise in some non-critical areas in order not to offend the Christian Jews unnecessarily. If you offend the Jewish Christians unnecessarily in terms of their customs, they will leave the church and Christianity and go back to Judaism. If however you won't stand tough towards certain circumstances (such as Peter's deed), the Jews may gradually influence the gentle Christians to adapt the unnecessarily Jewish customs and to say that gentiles need to observe the Jewish customs in order to be saved. That's actually how Paul had to fight such a kind of Jews in his letter to Galatians. Today's churches are made of exclusively gentile Christians. That's why Jewish customs such as covering your head is no longer a practices simply because there's no longer any church being a mixture of Jewish and gentile Christians.

It is crucially meaningful for Paul to say so. It defines the validity of the Mosaic covenant. By the old covenant the Jews need to observe Mosaic Law to a said level (with Moses as the accuser) in order to be saved. What Paul said is that even when a Jew (like himself) abides by the old covenant perfectly, he's not saved if he chooses to stand in the way of the New Covenant, and choose to persecute Christians. Paul's this point is echoed in Revelation. Revelation 3:9 (NIV2011) 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. Those Jews choose to stand in the way of the New Covenant are with Satan, disregarding how well they observe the Mosaic Law.

You need to first understand the process of human witnessing. The twelve is to bear witness for Jesus Christ. It's more or less like recording down what Jesus said and did, instead of going deep to explain the in-depth meaning behind what Jesus said and did. Paul on the other hand, is to explain the New Covenant brought by Jesus at the theological level. Pauline teaching harmonize perfectly and logically with what Jesus said. Of course, you have to first understand Paul's stance and circumstances in order to have a better understanding of what he said, say in Romans. Certain parts of what Paul said may be difficult to understand, as pointed by Peter himself. A typical example is that Jesus said the Law will not be abolished. It is said from the perspective of the nature of God's Law and covenants. Paul on the other hand ever put that Mosaic Law is abolish but from the perspective of the judgment effect of a covenant. Mosaic Law is abolished in a sense that it won't apply to humans under the protection of the New Covenant. Jesus' perspective on the other hand is, Mosaic Law itself as part of the covenant to the Jews will remain there all the times till at least the final judgment. Because it needs to be lawfully/legally effective till then in order to judge the Jews.

Human is designed to live an eternity. In order for this design to work, a human must have an identifiable part which lasts the whole timeline of eternity. Apparently our body can't be such an identity as body decays along with a physical death. The only part which continues forever (say, can be witnessed by the angels) is our soul, such that any witnessing done on a human won't discontinue. That's why we have a soul as a design necessity. Our body is our image for humans to recognize each other in a physical realm. It means that angels don't necessarily reckon us by our faces, angels may/can reckon us via our souls. An angel knows its you even when you are dead in Hades or sheol without a body. Soul however is 'transparent' to other humans. Humans can only rely on a body as the image to recognize each other. That's the default, by default soul won't be visually reckoned by another soul. Spirit on the other hand it's not you, though in a broader sense they can be interchangeable terms. In a stricter sense they are different things. Spirit is a necessity of part of the human design as it carries something necessary during a specific period of time. For example, humans on earth are living an earthly life. They have earthly emotions. They love their parents, lovers children and etc. These earthly affections are 'stored' in the spirit. Once you are dead, the spirit is said to return back to God. You no longer have the earthly emotions in you. That's why when we make our way to Heaven, we will all be brothers and sisters. Similarly, when you are dead in Hades you will no longer have the same love for your parents or kids or lovers whatsoever. You may not have conscience either, conscience is more or less about God's Law "written in our hearts". So unbelievers once reached Hades, they are the ones with no love, no conscience and no anything belongs to God. In the end they will turn into a sinning machine under Satan's influence. Loving God however can be something from your soul. Good and evil is a choice made by you. If you are familiar with computer, you are a processor going through a list of options and to deliver a decision on either 0 or 1, that's good and evil.

Revelation 2:20 (NIV2011) 20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. It ties to what this is. It refers to the various ways Satan can introduce a false doctrine into Christianity at the stage before a Canon is made available. Ancient custom works like this. They don't have the Internet we have today, knowledge is basically gained through travelling with exposure. Women are not allowed to travel freely for the sake of their own safety under most circumstance during their age of education. That says in the ancient world, women don't receive a fair education as men do. Paul's knowledge was gained from one of the most famous Pharisee back then. His knowledge was possibly constantly assessed by the Sanhedrin. He's thus potentially a candidate of the Sanhedrin at the time when he received direct order from the Sanhedrin to persecute Christians. He has years of debates in synagogues with all others as knowledgeable as he is. His knowledge of Jewish laws are proven with tracked records. Women back then seldom have the privilege to learn and access the knowledge of both the Jewish laws and Scripture knowledge this way. Most women are thus not qualified to speak in synagogues. It's not a discrimination, it's rather a reality to face back then. Satan basically has two ways to introduce a false doctrine. One is introduced by men who have some basic knowledge to twist the situation using "logic" to present a false doctrine. Paul is completely ready to counter this kind of "logical" introduction of a heresy. The other way is through a woman speaker. The doctrine can be completely baseless. She may only apply her charm and lust or even sexual immorality to bring in a false doctrine you may not logically defy. Paul may thus be caught by surprise to give out those comments. Those comments have nothing to do with discrimination as we perceive today.

In contrary I doubt that humans understand what science is. Humans are basically creatures of present. We are blocked from reaching the past, we are blocked from reaching the future. That's why you can't even tell what you yourself did today but a year ago. Humans don't even know what time is conceptually. We don't know the past, we don't know the future and we don't know what time is. Science is about a set of rules behind a repeating phenomenon. Science can be accurate because the phenomenon repeats itself infinitive number of times for us to speculate, to observe and to predict how it repeats. We can thus confirm its truth at the point that we can predict precisely how it repeats. We don't fart rocket randomly in the hope that randomness will bring the rocket to the surface of the moon. Instead we rely on the laws of physics to predict that we can land on the surface of the moon before we actually launch our rockets. Whenever a mission failed, we won't say that it's a mistake of the theory. It's always the mistakes of human errors, equipment errors, miscalculations, unpredictable factors and etc. The prediction made by the laws of physics makes no mistakes. That's what science is. Science relies on how a repeating phenomenon becoming predictable to confirm a truth. Science is not a suitable tool to deal with non-repeatable events. It's not an accurate tool to deal the past or the future. We have to employ science to do the job not because science is a proper tool. It's rather because we don't have a proper tool at all. Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit but rather speed/velocity is. We don't know what this means in terms of human conception. Yet whenever we try to step into the past we have to make the assumption that time is a stable physics unit, progresses evenly forward, under the consent (or choose to ignore) that this assumption is not a scientific truth.

Basically the covenant with Moses together with the Mosaic Law as a whole are for the Jews and converts. It's not for the gentiles. Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath and God may have a special purpose for the Jews to observe it strictly. You may take a look at today's world. All mankind are adapting a 7 day per week calendar with at least Sunday marked as the day of rest. It's a sign of God's sovereignty His not only the Lord of Sabbath but also the Lord of all mankind under His sovereignty. One of the main part of each and every covenant is its core commandments. The 10 commandments refer to the part exists in the Mosaic covenant. Now it boils down to the question that what core commandments which are in the Mosaic covenant for the Jews also exist in the New Covenant applying to all mankind alike. Matthew 19:17-19 (NIV2011) 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” Sabbath is not there. It's not Jesus' mistake to have it skipped. Instead, it signifies that the Jewish way of keeping the Sabbath is no longer applicable in the New Covenant. You can work on the Sabbath as long as the 7-day week is still in place for all mankind to follow. As for Christians we attend Sunday services. In the past 2000 years, Christians in majority only attended the church this way instead of observing the Sabbath in a Jewish way. Are the majority of Christians in mistakes? I don't think so. I don't think God views it that way or otherwise He should have corrected the behavior of the Christians in majority in the 2000 years of history. You can also look at how today's Jews observing the Sabbath. They don't even dare to press the buttons in an elevator. They use the elevator but have to ask someone else to press the floor buttons for them. Do you think that God is happy about this at all?! That's the Jewish way of observing the Sabbath that I don't think that God is agreement with. To me, that's the exact reason why Jesus chose the skip the Sabbath in His teaching as quoted in the verses above.

The first question is how close you can get to the original author, instead of the original language. The original author is God. If you can't get to God as close as those ancient Christians and as those before the invention of Internet, then you may have to think twice to see if the project is needed. The good or bad of the translation will completely depend on how close you are with God. It has almost nothing about how good the language is used.

The big picture is that, When Adam was out of Eden, humans are no longer living inside God's realm. Humans are put outside God's realm where Satan has a deep influence. If Adam failed the Law when he's in Eden with God, it is thus expected that humans when put outside God's realm won't be able to keep the same Law which both Adam and Satan broke. This point is proven through the period from Adam to Noah. It simply means that no humans can be saved through God's Law (the set of Law which both Adam and Satan broke). Then Noah was given the first covenant. A covenant simply says, "since you humans won't be able to keep God's Law to its full, you are give a set-aside set of laws such that if you can observe the given laws you will be saved through Jesus Christ". It is so because each and every covenant is granted based on Jesus' sacrifice to be occurred 2000 years ago. It means each and every human is possible to be saved via a covenant. If he can abide by what the covenant says, he thus will be saved. So what left is what will happen to those before Noah? By the verse the OP quoted, it hints that somehow those humans are saved through the New Covenant, the same covenant applicable to today's humans. The Bible doesn't give further details though. The dead after Noah are simply the dead. If the truth of the New Covenant is not fully revealed to them, it's humans own fault. They are will be judged by an older covenant applicable to them. God's job is to grant the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus Christ, all left is for humans to spread (preach) the message as widely as possible. It only took less than a century for the news to reach the whole of Roman Empire, even under certain resistance. So if the message hasn't reach a certain ethnic group of humans, it only means that it's rejected by that group of humans at some point. Then the judgment will be in accordance to an older covenant applicable to them. To the Jews, the older covenant may be the one God granted to Moses. To us gentiles, our older covenant may well be the one granted to Noah.