sukkot:
not as 3 men and a father but yes they existed

Ever heard of Tubal - Cain

plaetton:


Valid by what authority ?

Endorsed by Jesus or the holy spirit spiri ?

Endorsed by his pastor

sukkot:
and i told you what water means. its not h20. this is what water means in the bible

rev 17 vs 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the who-re sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

THIS IS HOW YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO READ THE BIBLE

isaiah 28 vs 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little <<< WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO USE THE BIBLE TO DECIPHER THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE IS LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT YOU HAVE TO ARRANGE. WHEN YOU SEE A WORD IN THE BIBLE, YOU USE THE BIBLES INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THAT WORD IS. FOR EXAMPLE TREE IN THE BIBLE MEANS MEN. IT DOES NOT MEAN AN ACTUAL TREE. ETC ETC.

Dude, you're no longer a theist. You are now a conspiracy theorist.

KingEbukasBlog:


Ever heard of Tubal - Cain

yup tubalcain is the password for freemasonry. it means someone who builds weaponry. someone who works with metal. a blacksmith. he is the son of lamech i believe and has a sister called naamah

Teempakguy:
Dude, you're no longer a theist. You are now a conspiracy theorist.

call it what you want teempak

sukkot:
yup tubalcain is the password for freemasonry. it means someone who builds weaponry. someone who works with metal. a blacksmith. he is the son of lamech i believe and has a sister called naamah

There were suggestions he survived the flood . So how is the flood allegorical if someone is claimed to have survived it

KingEbukasBlog:


There were suggestions he survived the flood . So how is the flood allegorical if someone is claimed to have survived it

tubalcain is not a mans name. like i have told you, bible is allegory. bible tells you it is allegory.

galatians 4 vs 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Which things are an allegory: <<< BIBLE TELLING YOU THAT THE BIBLE IS AN ALLEGORY. SO IF ABRAHAM THE PROGENITOR DID NOT EXIST THEN EVERYBODY ELSE DID NOT EXIST TOO RIGHT ? NOT AS SINGLE PEOPLE THEY DIDNT.

sukkot:
valid in that it is the only version that checks accurately against the hebrew and greek scrolls from which it is translated from

Lol.

But sire,
Where be the so-called Greek and Hebrew scrolls from which the KJV was supposedly translated ?

Could they have been lost, eaten by stray dogs or accidentally burnt ?

plaetton:


Lol.

But sire,
Where be the so-called Greek and Hebrew scrolls from which the KJV was supposedly translated ?

Could they have been lost, eaten by stray dogs or accidentally burnt ?

Somewhere in the vatican vault

sukkot:
tubalcain is not a mans name. like i have told you, bible is allegory. bible tells you it is allegory.

galatians 4 vs 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Which things are an allegory: <<< BIBLE TELLING YOU THAT THE BIBLE IS AN ALLEGORY. SO IF ABRAHAM THE PROGENITOR DID NOT EXIST THEN EVERYBODY ELSE DID NOT EXIST TOO RIGHT ? NOT AS SINGLE PEOPLE THEY DIDNT.

Hmmm . This keeps getting crazier . So why would an allegory go thru' the stress of genealogies in several verses . One which involves Jesus and you still said Jesus came to earth even though the bible is an allegory . You are obfuscating issues

KingEbukasBlog:


Kiddo

Whats your p ? The article clearly said evolution , you can write to MailOnline's science team and tell them they are wrong . Am no evolutionist .

And I wasn't cherry picking . It was pertinently done - in accordance sukkot and I's discussion of skin colour .

Yes, I'm very well aware that the article said evolution. however, I'm telling you that Darker skin is not necessarily due to evolution, but adaptation.

Now, concerning the issue of darker skins by way of evolution. It's nothing new. Humans have been using the mechanics of evolution for years. we've used it to domesticate several animals and create several new breeds that could have never existed otherwise. and the next step would obviously be to shift the challenge to the human species.

So the evolution the article was talking about was obviously artificial evolution. not natural. and that is mentioned in the post.

Dr Kwan believes that key to our future evolution will be man ‘wresting control’ of the human form from natural evolution and adapting human biology to suit our needs.

The darker skin within a thousand years? artificial evolution. so, they were right. just not in the way you thought they were.
Dude . . . It's not enough to read science updates. you need to actually take time to understand what you are reading.


speaking of which. . . this begs the question. if natural evolution is fake, how will it be possible to produce an artificial version?

KingEbukasBlog:


Hmmm . This keeps getting crazier . So why would an allegory go to the stress of genealogies in several verses . One which involves Jesus and you still said Jesus came to earth even though the bible is an allegory . You are obfuscating issues

cuz those are not genealogies. those are hidden codes. of which a white man who speaks hebrew has broken one of the codes. watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU5KxXTxOws

Teempakguy:
Yes, I'm very well aware that the article said evolution. however, I'm telling you that Darker skin is not necessarily due to evolution, but adaptation.

Now, concerning the issue of darker skins by way of evolution. It's nothing new. Humans have been using the mechanics of evolution for years. we've used it to domesticate several animals and create several new breeds that could have never existed otherwise. and the next step would obviously be to shift the challenge to the human species.

So the evolution the article was talking about was obviously artificial evolution. not natural. and that is mentioned in the post.

The darker skin within a thousand years? artificial evolution. so, they were right. just not in the way you thought they were.
Dude . . . It's not enough to read science updates. you need to actually take time to understand what you are reading.


speaking of which. . . this begs the question. if natural evolution is fake, how will it be possible to produce an artificial version?

I dont think you understand what's going on here . Follow this thread and link it up to when I introduced the notion and then the article . That should be of great help .

sukkot:
cuz those are not genealogies. those are hidden codes. of which a white man who speaks hebrew has broken one of the codes. watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zZAkzLPEo

Its a 21 minute video . No minute mark to start from ?

KingEbukasBlog:


I dont think you understand what's going on here . Follow this thread and link it up to when I introduced the notion and then the article . That should be of great help .

You said evolutionists believe that humans will have darker skin in a thousand years.

I'm telling you that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

that's what is going on here.

KingEbukasBlog:


Its a 21 minute video . No minute mark to start from ?

lol start from 3.41

Teempakguy:

You said evolutionists believe that humans will have darker skin in a thousand years.

I'm telling you that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

that's what is going on here.

ok

KingEbukasBlog:


Its a 21 minute video . No minute mark to start from ?

forget that video. this one is 2 minutes. this a better one. this one is straight to the point


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU5KxXTxOws

plaetton:


Lol.
I suppose that you or scholar8200 have explanations for the first cause ?

I guess you haven't been reading modern scientific articles and findings that question the necessity of a first cause ?

I personally have opened 2 threads to show scientific models of a universe that needn't have had a beginning, as we are wont to assume.

The Big Bang was a critical inflection point, rather than a bona fide first cause.

I thought we made ourselves clear ? God begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it. Since you don't believe in the supernatural, can we hear your natural explanation of the first cause?

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used
intelligent design,expertise or know how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ."

malvisguy212:
I thought we made ourselves clear ? God begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it. Since you don't believe in the supernatural, can we hear your natural explanation of the first cause?

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used
intelligent design,expertise or know how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ."

god didn't create no heaven and earth. We all know that. Why quote it every time still?

malvisguy212:
I thought we made ourselves clear ? God begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it. Since you don't believe in the supernatural, can we hear your natural explanation of the first cause?

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used
intelligent design,expertise or know how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ."

The creationist model is nothing but wishful fantasy , devoid of any mathematical corrolaries.
It is nothing but primitive superstitions.

Of course, you don't expect me to subscribe to primitive superstitions while there are scientific models.

plaetton:

The creationist model is nothing but wishful fantasy , devoid of any mathematical corrolaries.
It is nothing but primitive superstitions.

Of course, you don't expect me to subscribe to primitive superstitions while there are scientific models.

I understand, the atheists cannot believe the christians explanation of the first cause we call God. So what better explanation do atheists got ?

1feness:


god didn't create no heaven and earth. We all know that. Why quote it every time still?

so who did it ? lucky bounce? How do you reconcile luck and miracle ?

The truth is that Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. But what you atheists are doing is that we should ignored the explanation of this external cause.

To all the atheists out there, havn't you guys ever asked yourselves how you came into this world? Or you think is by mere chance? Havn't you guys ask what might happen if you die? Or you think that when you die, you go into extinction? Havn't you guys wondered about the orderliness in the universe and in this human world? Or you think's by chance?

Scholar8200:
And if they claim there might be no first cause needed then watch these men attribute the fact of the Creator being Un-created and from everlasting to everlasting, to their intellectual inventions (extrapolations, assumptions, estimations and ideas with much leeway to adjust it for crying out loud!). Indeed the whole reeks more, not of natural inquisitiveness, but a conceited drive egged on by rebellion!

God bless you, the atheists model are even more impressive miracle.

Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Time and space both came into existence when the universe began to exist. Therefore the cause of the universe had to be beyond time,beyond space, and beyond the material realm. The cause of the universe had to be a personal entity because impersonal forces cannot choose to bring time and space into existence.

malvisguy212:
so who did it ? lucky bounce? How do you reconcile luck and miracle ?

The truth is that Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. But what you atheists are doing is that we should ignored the explanation of this external cause.

If god did it,who created god? or how did god do it? That wouldn't be too much to ask,would it?

1feness:


If god did it,who created god? or how did god do it? That wouldn't be too much to ask,would it?

how many time will I explained this? I will give you two answer.
1.God is a spirit (Luke 4:24) , a spirit is not a MATERIAL cause, spirit are immaterial you cannot create it,
2. The universe began to exist, meaning space and time exist at one POINT of time, Therefore the cause of the universe had to be beyond time,beyond space, and beyond the material realm. The cause had to be external caused, which is GOD.

malvisguy212:
how many time will I explained this? I will give you two answer.
1.God is a spirit (Luke 4:24) , a spirit is not a MATERIAL cause, spirit are immaterial you cannot create it,
2. The universe began to exist, meaning space and time exist at one POINT of time, Therefore the cause of the universe had to be beyond time,beyond space, and beyond the material realm. The cause had to be external caused, which is GOD.

1 A spirit who visited Abraham and eat with him? A spirit who walked and talked to Adam in the garden? A spirit that wrestled with Jacob?

Can you see where you failed the exam?

2 You have no proof of your second claim. However I am not ready to school you on that yet.

1feness:


1 A spirit who visited Abraham and eat with him? A spirit who walked and talked to Adam in the garden? A spirit that wrestled with Jacob?

Can you see where you failed the exam?

2 You have no proof of your second claim. However I am not ready to school you on that yet.

Spirits can take any form they wish .


Its like you are proud of your misconceptions . At least understand what a Christian believes before you "school" him with your faulty thinking

malvisguy212:
I understand, the atheists cannot believe the christians explanation of the first cause we call God. So what better explanation do atheists got ?

I doubt he will reply you .

Anyways its usually :

"We dont know but we are sure God did not do it "

God caught on camera ?? Really ??

May God forgive us all. Amen

plaetton:
Here are some excerpts from the article:


Scientists have witnessed an unprecedented space miracle: They saw a new planet being born right before their eyes. The phenomenon, which even scientists had never seen before, has been recorded and shared online.
A juvenile planet formed around a young star named LkCa 15 in the neighborhood of Taurus, some 450 light years from Earth.

“This is the first time that we’ve imaged a planet that we can say is still forming,” said Stephanie Sallum, a University of Arizona graduate student who worked on the research.

Scientists, who were actually working separately at first, suspected that this particular galaxy might have an embryonic planet while doing previous research. Both Sallum and her colleague, Kate Follette, focused on LkCa15. However, the sensation here is not so much the new planet itself, but the process of its formation.

Revelation 4:11
thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they ARE and WERE created.