Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Wavejammers 328]

He isn't worshiping the Cross, but rather what it stands for. Jesus. Thus when we bow down, it doesn't matter if we bow down facing the cross or facing away from the cross, but rather who we are worshiping. I really don't think you understand most of what Christians do...

So I can worship the number of the beast, without breaking the second commandment?

Don't worry, I've been brought up in a semi-christian household, and when I went to visit my american family, i've got enough god.

[argonian 14254]

So I can worship the number of the beast, without breaking the second commandment?

Don't worry, I've been brought up in a semi-christian household, and when I went to visit my american family, i've got enough god.

What I think he means is that they are not worshipping the statue, they are just worshipping the person Jesus. Most people don't even notice the statue after the first couple times going there. I think the statue is probably just there for decoration and because they think that the guy they're worshipping, Jesus, looked like that.

[hammer01 29]

What I think he means is that they are not worshipping the statue, they are just worshipping the person Jesus. Most people don't even notice the statue after the first couple times going there. I think the statue is probably just there for decoration and because they think that the guy they're worshipping, Jesus, looked like that.

^^^^^^^

 

What dat guy said.

[Lago 2572]

How is this thread still limping on after the invokation of Godwin's law?

[hammer01 29]

How is this thread still limping on after the invokation of Godwin's law?

...I dont quite know what you mean by that... i think its a joke... maybe...?

[Joe_Blackman 253]

I believe in both creation and evolution... If evolution were to be real... Shouldn't there have been something which created something us? Human's aren't energy.

[MamaBearJade 2090]

My belief, we were created to evolve. It is proven time and time again that we evolve, grow

[hammer01 29]

EDIT: My dad just so happens to be a pastor, so ill ask him. I WILL get back to you on this. He will be back sometime today, so any other questions while i wait?

 

Me and my found this answer:

 

First of all, it's important to understand that

ancient Jewish genealogies differed in the form they took. There were

both ascending and descending genealogies; also, while some were

segmented, others were linear.

Genealogies also varied in depth—that is, they

varied in the number of generations included. Most of the time, they

were not meant to be comprehensive. It was a common practice to skip

generations, depending on the genealogy’s purpose (e.g., to establish

inheritance rights, citizenship, or even the legal right of a king to

rule).

In ascending genealogies, the Hebrew word ben can mean either “son,” or a more distant descendant (in Genesis 29:5, it denotes Laban, who was actually Nahor's grandson).

Likewise, in descending genealogies, the Hebrew word av can

mean either “father” or a more distant ancestor. For example, when

Matthew says that Joram was the “father” of Uzziah (see Matthew

1:9)—also known as Azariah— he’s actually skipping three generations

(compare to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12).

We also know (by comparing other OT accounts) that

the four generations from Perez to Amminadab spanned roughly 450

years—so there are obviously gaps at that point in the genealogy

(because we would ordinarily expect four generations to encompass less

than 200 years). The only people who have a problem with any of this

are modern readers who are unfamiliar with the nature, character, and

purpose of genealogies in ancient Israel.

But let's apply a little common sense here. If the

genealogies in Matthew and Luke were identical, then one of them would

have been unnecessary. And since God is the ultimate economizer of

space, logic dictates that the differences between the genealogies must

be purposeful.

When we study them in detail, it becomes apparent

that the two royal genealogies are complementary, not contradictory—

and that their distinctive features are rich in meaning and

significance.

Matthew's account, for example, presents Yeshua

(Jesus) of Nazareth as the “Son of David” (this title occurs numerous

times in Matthew), and also as the promised King of Israel—He’s called a

“king” seven times. So it should come as no surprise that Matthew’s

genealogy (see Matthew 1:1-17) emphasizes Jesus’ legal claim to the

throne of David, tracing His royal descent from David and Abraham.

Matthew may have had another reason for arranging his

royal genealogy the way he did. He presents the names in three sets of

14 generations each (see Matthew 1:17). In Jewish Gematria (an ancient

practice that assigns a numerical value to each letter in the Hebrew

alphabet), David’s name (DVD in Hebrew, which has no vowels) has a

value of 14 (dalet + vav + dalet, or 4 + 6 + 4

= 14). Also, David is the fourteenth name listed in Matthew’s

genealogy. So, this was a distinctive and stylistically Jewish way to

present the Lord Jesus as a royal descendant of King David and the

rightful heir to the throne.

Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, was written by a

physician-scientist whose purpose was to emphasize the Lord’s

humanity—in Luke, the Lord refers to Himself as “the Son of Man” more

than 20 times. Dr. Luke’s genealogy (see Luke 3:23-38) differs from

Matthew’s because it emphasizes the Lord’s biological descent from

David—and from Adam, the first man.

Doctoral dissertations have been written on the

messianic genealogies, so we make no pretense of having dealt with the

subject exhaustively here. There are other questions (like why two

different people are listed as Joseph’s father in Matthew 1:16 and

Luke 3:23), but there are many possibilities and numerous theories that

have been proposed to resolve them. Therefore, it is the height of

arrogance and presumption when a casual reader, with only a cursory

knowledge of the facts, notes the differences in these two genealogies

and jumps to the conclusion that one or both of them is in error.

 

Dat work for ya?

[argonian 14254]

But that says that they often skipped generations, which was my point for the "Humans could not have been around that long according to the Bible," thing.

[hammer01 29]

I guess i was wrong on that point. It just seems very unlikely for people to have been around millions of years and it having skipped so many generations.

 

 

besides evolution is not supported according to genesis one.

[Parading 302]

I'd like to see your facts, there is no proof that evolution exists.

Albeit I agree that this should be moved to the debate section as flaming is most likely to sprout up.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_facts_support_evolution

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204130240AAvAoXx

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

I could go on and on, but I find it strange that you are incapable of a simple Google search. 

[JtPv 140]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_facts_support_evolution

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204130240AAvAoXx

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

I could go on and on, but I find it strange that you are incapable of a simple Google search. 

...That was posted almost a year ago.... 

[Wavejammers 328]

...That was posted almost a year ago.... 

Says the guy who almost always copy pasted everything he said.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

How is this thread still limping on after the invokation of Godwin's law?

 

Because their thread is a lumbering beast which has taken many a blow but still manages to crawl forwards at a slow, yet steady pace. It should have been locked back down at page four when it went off topic.

[Parading 302]

...That was posted almost a year ago.... 

I don't really ever pay attention to the dates on posts. If he still believes what he stated, what I posted will still be relevant anyway.