Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: 'Missing Link' in human evolution found

  1. #61
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    So because one does not have the exact answer for something means their way of life is terrible? So you must have ALL the answers, right?

    So are you a sheep since you follow others thoughts on evolution? Because you did not come up with the concept.
    I didn't say that at all. Your sarcasm throughout this post makes it almost unworthy of any reply. Plus you keep avoiding my questions. But since you avoid the scientific facts that disprove the bible, the only way I can get through to you is by continuing to prove that the statements in the bible are false.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Clearly you have the slightest Idea why any of the books in the Bible were made. But It's weird that you talk as if you do. The Bible is not a science book, but yet and still it has accurate scientific facts in it, long before, as you say, people had any knowledge of those subjects. How can this be, oh great mind of science? If the Bible writers had no knowledge, how could their facts be straight on any of these topics? The earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing, right? Oh yea.. He got that right because a man saw a shadow on the floor ..................... Lucky guess. How about King David speaking of embryo's in psalms? WHO KNEW! King David was a scientist! But you're right, the Bible was written when no one had knowledge of these things.
    The earth is not a sphere, it is an ellipsoid. And the earth is not hanging on nothing, it is pulled by gravity. So again, the bible is wrong. Plus the bible says the earth is a circle. It also calls the heavens a circle. So again, the bible is wrong.

    I don't know why you make fun of historical facts about how the ancients knew the earth was not flat. It's pretty simple. If poles of equal length in the ground but in different locations on the earth cast different shadow lengths at the same time of day, the earth must be round. It's the only way to explain it. Amazingly, they were able to calculate the circumference of the earth to within 3% by simply pacing the distance between the poles (were over 100 miles apart) and measuring the length of the shadows. It's called geometry. Learn it.

    Where did King David speak of embryos? I'm sure the bible is incorrect here as well but I will wait to see.

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Im still waiting for the scientific answer to why the uneducated people who listened to Jesus in 70 ce survived the purge of Jerusalem, but millions of others died. How could a book of fables to control the uneducated masses, save their lives? That makes no sense. So I hope the genius of science can answer that for me. Especially since the genius of science can tell us what happened billions of years ago, and into the future! This should be easy!
    Unfamiliar with this. Please provide details.

  2. #62
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I didn't say that at all. Your sarcasm throughout this post makes it almost unworthy of any reply. Plus you keep avoiding my questions. But since you avoid the scientific facts that disprove the bible, the only way I can get through to you is by continuing to prove that the statements in the bible are false.
    Not agreeing is diff from avoiding. As best as I can i try to answer any questions you have. If I don't know, I simply say I don't. What specific question are you referring?




    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    The earth is not a sphere, it is an ellipsoid. And the earth is not hanging on nothing, it is pulled by gravity. So again, the bible is wrong. Plus the bible says the earth is a circle. It also calls the heavens a circle. So again, the bible is wrong.
    So wait.. You're trying to tell me that the earth does not look like a damn circle from outer space viewpoint? Are you really gonna go there? If I put the earth in front of a friggin 5 year old and ask what shape the earth is, 10 out of 10 will say CIRCLE, ROUND. Try it. I bet you will get similar results. So even if it is technically an elli- whatever you call it, To the avg person, it's a damn circle. And the fact of the matter is, it was not common knowledge in Biblical times that the earth was circular. So the fact that the Bible was correct, lends to my side of the argument, and goes against yours. I simply said, the Bible is right when it deals with science.

    If you don't think the earth looks round from the many pics of it we've seen through science, then you cannot be helped.

    And as far as the earth hanging on nothing... Again, smart guy like you, this should be child's play. But oh well. can gravity be seen? Can we see, gravity? No, we cannot. It is an invisible force. So therefore, when one takes a look at a pic of earth from an orbit shot.. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ITS A CIRCLE THAT HANGS ON NOTHING SINCE WE CANNOT SEE THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL. I mean.. that ain't hard at all. Also, it says hanging on nothing, and not being pulled by nothing. So you twisted things a bit to try and make your point.

    So in summation, From any orbital picture from outer space, the earth would appear to be a circle that hangs on nothing since it's round and gravity cannot be seen for us to know that is why it's stays in place.

    Bible 1- Lj-0.





    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Where did King David speak of embryos? I'm sure the bible is incorrect here as well but I will wait to see.



    Unfamiliar with this. Please provide details.
    psl 139:14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
    Your works are wonderful,
    As my soul is very well aware.


    15 My bones were not hidden from you
    When I was made in secret,
    When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.


    16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
    And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
    As regards the days when they were formed
    And there was not yet one among them.


    NWT

  3. #63
    Administrator rady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    3,828
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
    Actually the word "embryo" does not appear in the Bible or at least most of the versions are using the "unformed body" or "unformed substance" phrase.

    How about King David speaking of embryo's in psalms? WHO KNEW! King David was a scientist! But you're right, the Bible was written when no one had knowledge of these things.
    You know a chicken will develop from the white and the yolk of an egg (the embryo), that doesn't make you a scientist.

  4. #64
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Prophecy.

    “Jehovah Knows How to Deliver People”

    David was just one of many worshippers for whom Jehovah provided escape in Bible times. Since David’s time, God has time and again demonstrated the truthfulness of the apostle Peter’s words: “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.” (2 Pet. 2:9) Consider two more examples.

    When the mighty Assyrian army invaded Judah and threatened Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C.E., King Hezekiah prayed: “O Jehovah our God, save us . . . that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Jehovah, are God alone.” (Isa. 37:20) Hezekiah’s main concern was God’s name and reputation. Jehovah answered that fervent prayer. In just one night, a single angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians, providing deliverance for Jehovah’s faithful servants.—Isa. 37:32, 36.

    Read the prophecies recorded in Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21. Shortly before his death in 33 C.E., Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew what was going to happen to it. He foretold how the Romans would come and build a “fortification with pointed stakes” around Jerusalem and how they would devastate the city, causing great distress. Then he warned his disciples to ‘flee to the mountains’ when they saw the Romans coming against the city and thus save their lives.

    If you examine history, you will find that this all came true. In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape. In 70 C.E. the Romans returned, built an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and trapped everyone inside the city. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins,” says The Bible and Archaeology.


    So, what scientific explanation will help convince me against actual documented true history?

  5. #65
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Not agreeing is diff from avoiding. As best as I can i try to answer any questions you have. If I don't know, I simply say I don't. What specific question are you referring?
    For starters, the fossil record. This alone, regardless of all the other evidence (biology, genetics) completely disprove creationism. Life did not begin all at once 6,000-10,000 years ago. This is wrong. Plain and simple.

    So, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world...or anything else for that matter?

    One important fact...you drive a car I presume. The gasoline and oil used in your car are called fossil fuels. This is because oil is derived from the compression of decomposing carbon lifeforms hundreds of millions of years ago (dinosaurs, plants and other animals). 6,000-10,000 years is not enough time to complete this process. This scientific fact also disproves creationism. Oil and gas would not exist if creationism were true.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    So wait.. You're trying to tell me that the earth does not look like a damn circle from outer space viewpoint? Are you really gonna go there? If I put the earth in front of a friggin 5 year old and ask what shape the earth is, 10 out of 10 will say CIRCLE, ROUND. Try it. I bet you will get similar results. So even if it is technically an elli- whatever you call it, To the avg person, it's a damn circle. And the fact of the matter is, it was not common knowledge in Biblical times that the earth was circular. So the fact that the Bible was correct, lends to my side of the argument, and goes against yours. I simply said, the Bible is right when it deals with science.

    If you don't think the earth looks round from the many pics of it we've seen through science, then you cannot be helped.

    And as far as the earth hanging on nothing... Again, smart guy like you, this should be child's play. But oh well. can gravity be seen? Can we see, gravity? No, we cannot. It is an invisible force. So therefore, when one takes a look at a pic of earth from an orbit shot.. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ITS A CIRCLE THAT HANGS ON NOTHING SINCE WE CANNOT SEE THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL. I mean.. that ain't hard at all. Also, it says hanging on nothing, and not being pulled by nothing. So you twisted things a bit to try and make your point.

    So in summation, From any orbital picture from outer space, the earth would appear to be a circle that hangs on nothing since it's round and gravity cannot be seen for us to know that is why it's stays in place.

    Bible 1- Lj-0.
    I've already told you how the ancients knew the earth was round. This is a historical fact. Nothing unique in the bible here.

    Also, the Greek philosopher Anaximander thought that the earth was hung upon nothing. He conceived of the earth as suspended on nothing at the center of the sky, which was a hollow sphere surrounding the earth. So the Bible’s reference to the earth hanging on nothing is not unique.

    In Job 38:6 god refers to the earth having pedestals or cornerstones. A little contradictory of the earth hanging on nothing.

    Also, I believe there is some debate as to the true translation of these bible passages.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    And besides, like I said before. The earth is not hanging on nothing. It's not being pulled by nothing. Just because you can't see gravity doesn't make it nothing. You can't see the air you breath. Does this mean we breath nothing?

    And I don't get what you mean about a view from space. Are you telling me god didn't know what gravity was? Or that the earth wasn't a circle? Wasn't the bible supposed to be inspired by god? Did god just send an image of earth from space and not properly explain what it actually was? I don't get it.

    No, it actually sounds more like the ancient interpretations of what the earth and space were. Not something inspired by god.

    16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
    And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
    As regards the days when they were formed
    And there was not yet one among them.
    Geez. Talk about manipulation. This is the real passage:

    your eyes saw my unformed body.
    All the days ordained for me
    were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.


    But herein lies the problem with interpreting the bible. Anybody can make it seem the way they want it to. Hence, so many religions.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Dec 01, 2009 at 12:38.

  6. #66
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    “Jehovah Knows How to Deliver People”

    David was just one of many worshippers for whom Jehovah provided escape in Bible times. Since David’s time, God has time and again demonstrated the truthfulness of the apostle Peter’s words: “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.” (2 Pet. 2:9) Consider two more examples.

    When the mighty Assyrian army invaded Judah and threatened Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C.E., King Hezekiah prayed: “O Jehovah our God, save us . . . that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Jehovah, are God alone.” (Isa. 37:20) Hezekiah’s main concern was God’s name and reputation. Jehovah answered that fervent prayer. In just one night, a single angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians, providing deliverance for Jehovah’s faithful servants.—Isa. 37:32, 36.

    Read the prophecies recorded in Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21. Shortly before his death in 33 C.E., Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew what was going to happen to it. He foretold how the Romans would come and build a “fortification with pointed stakes” around Jerusalem and how they would devastate the city, causing great distress. Then he warned his disciples to ‘flee to the mountains’ when they saw the Romans coming against the city and thus save their lives.

    If you examine history, you will find that this all came true. In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape. In 70 C.E. the Romans returned, built an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and trapped everyone inside the city. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins,” says The Bible and Archaeology.


    So, what scientific explanation will help convince me against actual documented true history?
    First of all Luke was written in the late 90s of the first century or in the early second century. Hardly a fulfilled prophecy.

    From wikianswers.com:
    We can establish an approximate minimum date for when Luke'sGospel was written, by identifying the sources, since the book must have been written after the books Luke used as sources.

    We know that both Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for most of their information about the life of Jesus. Whenever they agree with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, somthing that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "missing block", a short section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. Since we can say that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE, Luke's Gospel must have been written some time later. Internal clues indicate that Luke's Gospel must have been written somewhat later than Matthew's, so we can say that Matthew's Gospel would have been written no ealier than 80 CE, while Luke's Gospel was written no earlier than about 90 CE.

    Luke's Gospel show evidence of borrowing material from the works of Josephus, a Jewish military leader and historian. Evidence that it contains material from Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 CE, indicates that it was written some time after this date.

    We know that Luke's Gospel was already regarded as a classic of Christian scriptures by the middle of the second century, so we also know that it could not have been written later than the early years of the century.

    On the basis of this evidence, we can suggest that the Gospel According to St Luke was probably written in the late 90s of the first century, or quite early in the second century.



    Second of all, learn your history:

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

  7. #67
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    First of all Luke was written in the late 90s of the first century or in the early second century. Hardly a fulfilled prophecy.

    From wikianswers.com:
    We can establish an approximate minimum date for when Luke'sGospel was written, by identifying the sources, since the book must have been written after the books Luke used as sources.

    We know that both Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for most of their information about the life of Jesus. Whenever they agree with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, somthing that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "missing block", a short section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. Since we can say that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE, Luke's Gospel must have been written some time later. Internal clues indicate that Luke's Gospel must have been written somewhat later than Matthew's, so we can say that Matthew's Gospel would have been written no ealier than 80 CE, while Luke's Gospel was written no earlier than about 90 CE.

    Luke's Gospel show evidence of borrowing material from the works of Josephus, a Jewish military leader and historian. Evidence that it contains material from Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 CE, indicates that it was written some time after this date.

    We know that Luke's Gospel was already regarded as a classic of Christian scriptures by the middle of the second century, so we also know that it could not have been written later than the early years of the century.

    On the basis of this evidence, we can suggest that the Gospel According to St Luke was probably written in the late 90s of the first century, or quite early in the second century.



    Second of all, learn your history:

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

    first of all, this is heresay of when they THINK Luke"s gospel is diff that you are using as a proof text to make a point. Luke did not simply just copy after other writers, he was a close associate of the apostle Peter who was actually around when Jesus was, who would then be a very credible source.

    Also, Josephus speaks of the same with the Christians, verifying the biblical account of them fleeing. And even if this report you put up was true (which it's not) It still does not explain why in the world would the Christians decide to leave almost 3 years earlier than the actual siege? WHY???? Especially if as you say Luke's account was not written in time enough for them to escape the siege.

    So basically what you're left with is holes in your theory. Because if Luke's account was written after the siege then there would have been no warning for the Christians to escape 3 years before the siege, which Josephus himself attests to them doing so. A person who was actually around at the time. Then they too would have died,. But they didn't. Why?

    Let me remind you of the prophecy again, because you tend to misunderstand them a lot being so in a rush to disprove it. The important date to remember in the prophecy was not 70 CE but 66 ce. Even Josephus reported on it. Look again.

    In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape.

    So again, Luke"s account had to have been around after 70 ce based on this information.


    You tried it.

  8. #68
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    first of all, this is heresay of when they THINK Luke"s gospel is diff that you are using as a proof text to make a point. Luke did not simply just copy after other writers, he was a close associate of the apostle Peter who was actually around when Jesus was, who would then be a very credible source.
    When something is written after another and is exactly the same, word for word in certain spots then it was copied. Much like this quote you keep posting:
    In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape.

    These are not your words. You copied and pasted them. It's not that difficult to determine.

    When something is written after an event, then it cannot be called a fulfilled prophecy.

    Also, like I said before, learn your history:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Also, Josephus speaks of the same with the Christians, verifying the biblical account of them fleeing. And even if this report you put up was true (which it's not) It still does not explain why in the world would the Christians decide to leave almost 3 years earlier than the actual siege? WHY???? Especially if as you say Luke's account was not written in time enough for them to escape the siege.

    So basically what you're left with is holes in your theory. Because if Luke's account was written after the siege then there would have been no warning for the Christians to escape 3 years before the siege, which Josephus himself attests to them doing so. A person who was actually around at the time. Then they too would have died,. But they didn't. Why?
    Can you please provide the citation. I believe it is in "The War of the Jews", Book IV. Which page please?

    I don't know why I waste my time. I've proven the bible to be wrong about creation. You choose to ignore that. If it's wrong about creation, then how can it be right about the end of the world? When you use these so-called prophecies to back up the prophecy of the end of the world.

  9. #69
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    When something is written after another and is exactly the same, word for word in certain spots then it was copied. Much like this quote you keep posting:
    In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape.

    These are not your words. You copied and pasted them. It's not that difficult to determine.

    When something is written after an event, then it cannot be called a fulfilled prophecy.

    Also, like I said before, learn your history:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    So again, if what you say is true that Luke basically copied Josephus story after it happened, why then would the Christians have fled? for what reason would there have been for them to flee after the attack in 66 ce was called off? You can't just stop at saying it's copied without explaining why just one certain group of people would leave without warrant. Jesus was not God's son, nor a prophet, so any foreknowledge that he supposedly had in the Bible is all fictitious. So then why in the world did the people who listened to him escape with their lives? Answer that please. You have yet to even attempt to answer it. Just saying it was copied. why would they flee if there was no warning?

    And why do you keep saying learn my history? I know that in 66 ce the romans for whatever reason left the city. We have a roman historian documenting that. Are you now disputing that?




    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I don't know why I waste my time. I've proven the bible to be wrong about creation. You choose to ignore that. If it's wrong about creation, then how can it be right about the end of the world? When you use these so-called prophecies to back up the prophecy of the end of the world.
    The bible is not wrong about creation. Evolution is the one whose story keeps changing to fit it's theories. I wonder why you have no issues with that?

    Lets see.

    The bible provides what the messiah will accomplish, when he will appear and die. Jesus fulfilled all of them.

    Jehovah said Babylon will never be inhabited again some time after the initial destruction in 539 bce. To this day, it"s still uninhabited. A waste land. Even though numerous ones have tried to rebuild it. All that's there is rubble from ancient times.

    I believe we went thru the trye prophecy.

    The bible gives time line when Jesus will return as King in heaven (1914)

    Jehovah said in Isaiah in the time of the end, pure worship of him will stand out compared to all other forms of religion at that time. As it stands today, Jehovah's witnesses are by far and away the most united worshipers in the world. The only faith that preaches the same word world wide, studies the same word world wide on meeting days, and totally agree on doctrine world wide. That's unity beyond anything the world knows. Can't hardly get a household of 5 to maintain unity, yet somehow, 7 million people from all walks of life, pray to the same God, study the same word, preach the same word, and try to live in love and peace as best as imperfect humans can. Why should not believe there is a Jehovah when all of the things he said will happen, happen? Because the strength of numbers in test after test on carbon dating says 10/14 is conclusive? If that works for you, that's fine. But Jehovah is 100 for 100. Now that's strength in numbers.

    Jehovah said the righteous will inherit the earth and reside in it forever. In a way he has already made that come true! He has over 7 million people already trying to live up to that prophecy! So why would I think the rest of it won't happen?

    I remember one time in an earlier post, you asked if there is a God, why won't he reveal himself to you. Jesus once made a parable about Lazarus and the rich man that can describe what you're going through with that. He mentions to the rich man who asked to warn his brothers of their pending doom, that his brothers had the law and the prophets, if they do not listen to them they basically won't listen to anything. Jehovah is not going to come to you in a dream. YOU HAVE THE WHOLE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD AVAILABLE TO YOU. Try to make use of it objectively. Maybe that will open up some things to you.

  10. #70
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    So again, if what you say is true that Luke basically copied Josephus story after it happened, why then would the Christians have fled? for what reason would there have been for them to flee after the attack in 66 ce was called off? You can't just stop at saying it's copied without explaining why just one certain group of people would leave without warrant. Jesus was not God's son, nor a prophet, so any foreknowledge that he supposedly had in the Bible is all fictitious. So then why in the world did the people who listened to him escape with their lives? Answer that please. You have yet to even attempt to answer it. Just saying it was copied. why would they flee if there was no warning?

    And why do you keep saying learn my history? I know that in 66 ce the romans for whatever reason left the city. We have a roman historian documenting that. Are you now disputing that?
    Ughh. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. If something is written after an event occurs, it cannot be considered a prophecy. It is null and void.

    When I say learn your history, I suggest you know the facts before you make outrageous claims.

    - The Romans didn't just call off the attack in 66 for no reason:
    A jewish rebellion had started in Jerusalem in 66 because of 60 years of Roman taxation, poverty and class struggles and brutal and unfair punishment to the jews by Romans (many, many unjust crucifications). Troops were sent to restore order and were defeated in an ambush. The army was forced to return and was defeated by one of the leaders of the zealots. The Romans were humiliated by this defeat and began amassing troops. War was inevitible and most Jews prepared for a big war.

    - Christians were not the only ones to flee the city in 66:
    The pro-Roman king Agrippa II and his sister Berenice fled Jerusalem to Galilee in 66. Many people fled Jerusalem. When it was evident the Romans would return with a larger army many people left, leaving it in the hands of the radicals. Some of those who went away were Jewish Christians. Also in 66, James the Just of Jerusalem (the first Christian bishop) was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin. This act increased the tensions between the Jews and Jewish Christians and led the struggling Jewish-Christian community to begin leaving.


    So, let's recap. A rebellion begins. Troops are sent to restore order and are defeated. A larger army is amassed and the people prepare for war. Meanwhile, groups of people fearing for their lives and not supportive of the radical rebellion leave before the war begins.

    This is nothing new in history. There are many examples of this throughout history. The only difference is a claimed prophecy written after the events occurred...which makes the prophecy not a prophecy at all. Many Iraqis fled Iraq and became refugees in Syria when we started amassing troops around them. Aybody could write about an influential person claiming to prophesize about the events after they happened.

    Plus, I asked you to cite the War of the Jews. I don't have time to read all of Josephus' writings. But since you know history and Josephus so well, could you please show me where he states that ONLY Christians fled Jerusalem because of the prophecy of Jesus.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    The bible is not wrong about creation.
    Yes, it is. Life did not begin at once 6,000 years ago. This is a fact. I'm sorry, the bible is wrong here.

    The fossil evidence is enough to refute that. But you claim every single fossil and every single scientist is wrong.

    You also never addressed the fossil fuel queston. You wouldn't be able to drive a car if creationism was correct.

    So, let me give you irrefutable evidence that the bible is wrong.

    - The oldest known living tree in the world is a spruce tree living in Sweden. It is 9,550 years old. We can determine tree ages by counting tree rings. I have done this many, many times when I was a forester with the US Forest Service. You bore a increment borer into a live tree, extract a core and count the rings. This is irrefutable.

    Other evidence is the Bristlecone Pine where I live here in Colorado. These trees live up to 5,000 years old. Dead trees also take forever to decay in the harsh, dry climate of the Rocky Mountains. By coring live trees and taking tree ring samples of dead trees we can overlap the rings (climactic events show up in tree rings and they can be matched with 100% certainty to other trees) and trace back Bristlecone Pine trees to over 14,000 years ago.

    So again, I ask you, if the bible is wrong about creation, how canit be right about the end of the world?

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Evolution is the one whose story keeps changing to fit it's theories. I wonder why you have no issues with that?
    Huh? Please explain. The theory of evolution has remained constant for 150 years. New evidence is constantly found. Not a single piece of evidence ever discovered has contradicted the theory of evolution. Every single piece of evidence discovered has only strengthened evolution. On the other hand, all this evidence seems to keep contradicting creationism. I wonder why?

    I also find it funny that a Jehovah's Witness complains about stories being changed. You guys are famous for changing your prophecies. Wasn't the world supposed to end like 60 years ago? Oh wait, wasn't it about 40 years ago...oh wait, NOW you guys understand the bible better and it's coming soon...again.

    Ha! What will happen to the JWs in 50 years when the world hasn't ended...again? You guys will probably change your stories again. Someday, maybe 100 years from now, the JWs will go away because people will stop falling for your ever-changing stories. Unlikely though. It is a cult, and as long as people have poor childhoods or feel unloved and unimportant, cults will always exist (that and not being properly educated).


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Jehovah said Babylon will never be inhabited again some time after the initial destruction in 539 bce. To this day, it"s still uninhabited. A waste land. Even though numerous ones have tried to rebuild it. All that's there is rubble from ancient times.

    I believe we went thru the trye prophecy.
    We did go over the Tyre prophecy. Geez. You're still on that one? Just goes to show you how delusional you are. Tyre still exists. It's still here. It's a city of 120,000 people. Here's a picture:


    Here's a better picture:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Again, learn your history:

    Early History:

    The commerce of the ancient world was gathered into the warehouses of Tyre. "Tyrian merchants were the first who ventured to navigate the Mediterranean waters; and they founded their colonies on the coasts and neighbouring islands of the Aegean Sea, in Greece, on the northern coast of Africa, at Carthage and other places, in Sicily and Corsica, in Spain at Tartessus, and even beyond the pillars of Hercules at Gadeira (Cádiz)".[12]

    In the time of King David (c. 1000 BC), a friendly alliance was entered into between the Kingdoms of Israel and Tyre, which was ruled by Hiram I.

    The city of Tyre was particularly known for the production of a rare and extraordinarily expensive sort of purple dye, produced from the murex shellfish, known as Tyrian purple. This color was, in many cultures of ancient times, reserved for the use of royalty, or at least nobility.

    It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians. It later fell under the power of the Persians.

    In 332 BC, the city was conquered by Alexander the Great, after a siege of seven months in which he built the causeway from the mainland to the island,[13] but it continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era. The presence of the causeway affected water currents nearby, causing sediment to build up, making the connection permanent.

    In 315 BC, Alexander's former general Antigonus began his own siege of Tyre,[14] taking the city a year later.[15]

    In 126 BC, Tyre regained its independence (from the Seleucids)[16] and was allowed to keep much of its independence when the area became a Roman province in 64 BC.[17]
    Hardly an uninhabited wasteland. You can't even accept that a city exists. Talk about hopeless.

    You know. You can't just make up history and claim it to follow the prophecy. And then close your eyes and plug your ears when someone actually explains reality to you. What the f*ck is going to take? Do I need to buy you a freaking plane ticket to Tyre? Damn! I'm done with you. You are utterly, utterly hopeless.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Dec 13, 2009 at 11:11.

  11. #71
    The One and Only KING~POETIQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Queens the Foundation
    Posts
    1,807
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Yo, shouldn't atheists not give a **** about other religions?

  12. #72
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by SLY1984
    Yo, shouldn't atheists not give a **** about other religions?
    I give a **** about the truth. I give a **** about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones? And the most educated, successful and happiest societies are the least religious (see Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden)? That's not a coincidence.

    Normally I wouldn't care that this guy believes life on earth is 6,000 years old. As long as he wasn't harming anyone.

    But he goes around knocking on people's doors and attempts to convince people of falsehoods. He is in a cult. Cults typically take advantage of underprivelaged, uneducated people starving for meaning and love in their lives.

    Plus, he has children. He teaches his children these falsehoods and tells them the world is going to end soon. This is child abuse. I have friends that had JW parents. They never got a college degree. Because what would be the point if the world is going to end soon? Then when my friend left the JWs, his mother was not allowed to see him anymore (all the signs of a cult).

    Educate yourself man. Don't disregard the facts and don't capitulate to superstitions. Apply logic and critical thinking to everything you do. That's all I ask.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Dec 11, 2009 at 16:37.

  13. #73
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Ughh. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. If something is written after an event occurs, it cannot be considered a prophecy. It is null and void.
    Yo. You're not THAT smart guy. You're really kinda avg when it comes to what you think you know. Stop tooting you're horn so much as if you're this ultra intellect lol.

    I totally get what you're trying to say. That being said I do not agree with whoever and whatever you posted about Luke's writings being written say what 90 ce? That would have given the Christians no time to be prepared to leave. And being a Jehovah's witness, which the Christians in the 1st century were also, I know that they would not have moved so drastically without input from the written word and the governing body at the time. So this is deeper than you can imagine. Jehovah's people are united. The Christians would have not left based on what any other group was doing at the time. The Christians were not involved in the wars of that day, or the political process of that day, so them leaving was purely independent reasoning. So again, I ask you WHY WOULD THEY LEAVE? Especially if Luke's writings were not around?

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    When I say learn your history, I suggest you know the facts before you make outrageous claims.

    - The Romans didn't just call off the attack in 66 for no reason:
    A jewish rebellion had started in Jerusalem in 66 because of 60 years of Roman taxation, poverty and class struggles and brutal and unfair punishment to the jews by Romans (many, many unjust crucifications). Troops were sent to restore order and were defeated in an ambush. The army was forced to return and was defeated by one of the leaders of the zealots. The Romans were humiliated by this defeat and began amassing troops. War was inevitible and most Jews prepared for a big war.
    Josephus sad this: Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.”

    Now If this man was around at that time and he said they retired for no reason, and was working for ROME, what is to debate? Seriously? You're acting as if it's made up. Now I'm sure he had his reason for calling it off, but whatever it was clearly it had to look crazy to Josephus because it was not like he was in danger of losing. The Romans were a world power. Jerusalem was divided and beaten. What they did 3 years later could have been done at the time. Which is probably why Josephus wrote what he did.

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    - Christians were not the only ones to flee the city in 66:
    Maybe them being the only ones was strong. What should have been said was what I wrote up top. They had no reason to leave based on any other group there. It's not like they were liked or in cahootes with any group of people at the time. They were cast offs. So them leaving was purely independent. Better?



    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    So, let's recap. A rebellion begins. Troops are sent to restore order and are defeated. A larger army is amassed and the people prepare for war. Meanwhile, groups of people fearing for their lives and not supportive of the radical rebellion leave before the war begins.
    Why would they fear for their lives? Dude called off the first attack. The army left!!!!! They felt they had won. There was no larger army being amassed. Where did you read this? If the army was being amassed How then would people be allowed to leave? That makes no sense. It makes more sense if the army pulled back some and sent for more troops in the initial attack of 66 ce. But since they fled for no reason, that would give anyone who wanted to leave a chance to. But again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, so maybe you have a better explanation?

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    This is nothing new in history. There are many examples of this throughout history. The only difference is a claimed prophecy written after the events occurred...which makes the prophecy not a prophecy at all. Many Iraqis fled Iraq and became refugees in Syria when we started amassing troops around them. Aybody could write about an influential person claiming to prophesize about the events after they happened.
    Lemme put you on a bit about Jehovah's witnesses. They are and have always been a very well organized people. From Moses time, to the early Christian era, and especially today. At no time, would their decisions to make drastic moves come from any other threat of life, or government. They were hated in Jerusalem, stoned and killed, crucified in Rome.. All that. Stayed. Why? Because they had a commission from God to complete. So tell me.. If they are willing to get stoned for their beliefs, why would a general calling off his troops scare them into leaving? Because that is essentially what you are saying. Nowhere did I read a larger army was being amassed during the time they fled for no reason. In fact, it was a completely different general who came the 2nd time. Which hints to a completely different agenda.

    People willing to get stoned, flogged, jailed, beaten, crucified but yet flee when an army was called off? Adds up? No. They fled because they remembered Jesus words in Luke. Point blank.






    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Yes, it is. Life did not begin at once 6,000 years ago. This is a fact. I'm sorry, the bible is wrong here.
    The Bible does not hint to life being created at once. What we always discuss is the origin of man. Plant life, animal life, before man. Who knows how long since Jehovah's time frame is diff than ours. But if you would have really been paying attention, instead of just trying to show us your amazing intellect, and how stupid and uneducated we are, you probably would have saw that by now. But you smart people just hate to be wrong.

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    The fossil evidence is enough to refute that. But you claim every single fossil and every single scientist is wrong.
    Im not arguing if live is only 6000 years old guy. Never have. That has never been a Jehovah's witness teaching. Again, what we disagree on is evolution and the origin of man. Not whether all life (animal, plant, human) is only 6k.



    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    You also never addressed the fossil fuel queston. You wouldn't be able to drive a car if creationism was correct.
    Honestly never seen this question posed. Please oblige.

    So, let me give you irrefutable evidence that the bible is wrong.


    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    - The oldest known living tree in the world is a spruce tree living in Sweden. It is 9,550 years old. We can determine tree ages by counting tree rings. I have done this many, many times when I was a forester with the US Forest Service. You bore a increment borer into a live tree, extract a core and count the rings. This is irrefutable.

    Other evidence is the Bristlecone Pine where I live here in Colorado. These trees live up to 5,000 years old. Dead trees also take forever to decay in the harsh, dry climate of the Rocky Mountains. By coring live trees and taking tree ring samples of dead trees we can overlap the rings (climactic events show up in tree rings and they can be matched with 100% certainty to other trees) and trace back Bristlecone Pine trees to over 14,000 years ago.

    So again, I ask you, if the bible is wrong about creation, how canit be right about the end of the world?
    Again, no one knows how long each day to God was before man. A day to God could have been thousands to us. And he created all other forms of life before mankind was made. So therefore this could have been several thousands of years. Could have. what we do know now is that a day to God is as a 1k to us. But That does not mean it was that way before man.

    We are debating whether we're monkey men. And you or science have yet to show any such being.



    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Huh? Please explain. The theory of evolution has remained constant for 150 years. New evidence is constantly found. Not a single piece of evidence ever discovered has contradicted the theory of evolution. Every single piece of evidence discovered has only strengthened evolution. On the other hand, all this evidence seems to keep contradicting creationism. I wonder why?
    This is simply not true. If it were, EVERY SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE. Since they don't, you're beat. If it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be, there would not be a hint of disagreement in the science world. But there is. Why? Cuz the scientists who disagree are stupid and uneducated like Jehovah's witnesses?


    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I also find it funny that a Jehovah's Witness complains about stories being changed. You guys are famous for changing your prophecies. Wasn't the world supposed to end like 60 years ago? Oh wait, wasn't it about 40 years ago...oh wait, NOW you guys understand the bible better and it's coming soon...again.

    Ha! What will happen to the JWs in 50 years when the world hasn't ended...again? You guys will probably change your stories again. Someday, maybe 100 years from now, the JWs will go away because people will stop falling for your ever-changing stories. Unlikely though. It is a cult, and as long as people have poor childhoods or feel unloved and unimportant, cults will always exist (that and not being properly educated).
    Actually, I'm not complaining at all. just saying science which in theory only deals with precision, should never have to revise it's basis. Unless of course it's not a perfect science, which then will lead to many questions. And if it's not perfect, why should one trust it? Because of strength of numbers? 10/17 is a good night in the NBA, but if my life depended on it, I don't know..

    And secondly, we never change the prophecy, but we have had wrong thoughts on when prophecy will take place, or later revelations have helped to shed light on a point or two we may have misapplied. I'm not ashamed to admit this, because we are not a perfect people. But our misunderstanding does not mean that God's word is tainted or wrong. And the very same thing happened to Christians in Jesus day. He simply corrected them and kept them on the path necessary until the time came for more light to be shed on a subject matter. And that is what Jehovah's people have done today.

    Jehovah will not be late. The end will come right on time. But his time. We preach the good news and wait til that time. But the Bible does hint on worldly activities during that time, and if one is paying attn, we been in that time for quite awhile. And it's just getting worse and worse. Won't be much longer, and certainly not 50 or 60 years.

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    We did go over the Tyre prophecy. Geez. You're still on that one? Just goes to show you how delusional you are. Tyre still exists. It's still here. It's a city of 120,000 people. Here's a picture:


    Here's a better picture:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Again, learn your history:



    Hardly an uninhabited wasteland. You can't even accept that a city exists. Talk about hopeless.

    You know. You can't just make up history and claim it to follow the prophecy. And then close your eyes and plug your ears when someone actually explains reality to you. What the f*ck is going to take? Do I need to buy you a freaking plane ticket to Tyre? Damn! I'm done with you. You are utterly, utterly hopeless.
    Actually, you should be done with yourself.

    Tyre still exists, and the prophecy never said it wouldn't. It said it would become a drying yard for dragnets. That after being a very powerful city commercially in the time of the prophecy. And they had a pretty good navy as well. Even gave Alex the great a fight. Right now, Tyre is not named Tyre, and it is basically a seaport (which in biblical times would have been a drying yard for dragnets.)

    You just proved my point. It only has 120 people, and still does business in its seaport. drying yard for dragnets.

    The uninhabitable waste land I referred to, was the place where ancient Babylon now sits. Jehovah said no arab will pitch a tent there. Meaning it will never fully be inhabited again. Now since you are the one famous for posting pictures and videos, please, help us out and post some recent pics and videos of what ancient Babylon now looks like. Because I'm pretty sure the last time I seen pics of it, it was a desert in ruins that many have tried to resurrect and have not. Including sadaam once.

    Didn't your teachers say pay attn to the board in class? Or did you miss that part getting that grand education of yours? come on smart guy... follow along properly. Tyre and Babylon, two diff outcomes. Keep this up we'll have to get the dunce cap out and put you in the corner!

  14. #74
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I give a **** about the truth. I give a **** about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones? And the most educated, successful and happiest societies are the least religious (see Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden)? That's not a coincidence.
    Do you really care about the truth, or just being right at all cost because you're the smartest man alive?

    Jehovah's people are educated, successful and happier than you can know. Being religious does not have to rob you of these things. But on the flip side, how happy can one be in this world? what is happy? What is successful?

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Normally I wouldn't care that this guy believes life on earth is 6,000 years old. As long as he wasn't harming anyone.

    But he goes around knocking on people's doors and attempts to convince people of falsehoods. He is in a cult. Cults typically take advantage of underprivelaged, uneducated people starving for meaning and love in their lives.
    You sound silly. Ask around if anyone in your neighborhood thinks Jehovah's witnesses are harming people. I'm positive you will get the very opposite opinion. And for a so called smart guy, you are badly misinformed on a lot of things. Which makes me question how smart you really are. I work with a guy who hates Jehovah's witnesses, but has at least done the necessary research to find out that we are most certainly not a cult lol. Geez. You just like to hear yourself talk I guess. if we're not a cult, and you say we are, who is the uneducated one here?



    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Plus, he has children. He teaches his children these falsehoods and tells them the world is going to end soon. This is child abuse. I have friends that had JW parents. They never got a college degree. Because what would be the point if the world is going to end soon? Then when my friend left the JWs, his mother was not allowed to see him anymore (all the signs of a cult).
    Wait a minute. You teach people that we come from monkeys and they aint found 1 apeman yet. But I guess that's not child abuse? You're foolish.

    There are lawyer's, Dr.s, dentists, scientists, that are also Jehovah's witnesses. I'm married to a lawyer. I'm sure they went to college (I was there when my wife graduated) so your friends not going to college was a decision they made, not one that JW's told him to make. However, the society will guard against secular education in place of Education and preaching the word of God. The latter is much more important and has life saving prospects. while being successful in this world for a few short years will get you nowhere with God.

    But you have to work to support yourself and family. Jehovah knows this better than we do. And to get a job you likely need some college education in this day and age. Unless you have a trade. What your friends should have told you was that Pursuit of secular education that will get in the way of your worship to God is what is guarded against. And they will implore you to pursue a very active course in serving God (Pioneering which entails some 70 hrs a month of active door to door work) or working where the need is great (places where the Christian activity needs to be built up more regularly) If one was to pursue these goals, They would likely not be able to handle a very demanding job (Dr, lawyer, etc) And those are the jobs that people in college usually try to aim for. Big money jobs mean spending big time away from worship, which could then dull a persons senses to what is most important, serving Jehovah. That is what your friends SHOULD have expressed. But since they are no longer in the truth, they likely resent it, which means they probably just wanna shed a bad light on things.

    And if their mom can no longer associate with them, it is because they were disfellowshipped from the organization, meaning they no longer wanted to serve Jehovah. The first law in serving Jehovah is loving Jehovah more than yourself, and even your family. After all he loved us enough to give life, and send his son to die for us so that we can regain it. And it is a loving provision in two ways:

    a) it keeps the congregation clean from would be defilers. Jehovah likes pure, clean worship. If one is defiling himself and using his name, it would put a negative light on his name, and the rest of the people trying to live right. And it may entice others to try and do the same. If the defiler is removed, then it keeps the uncleanliness from the congregation. If the defiler is never removed, then it would be ok to keep transgressing. Which Jehovah certainly does not approve of.

    b) hopefully it shames the transgressor. No one becomes a Jehovah's witness without proper biblical knowledge and an appreciation for him. Sometimes people get caught up and slip up. They then possibly feel maybe God wont take them back, or that they are not good enough because they made some mistakes. If a person truly loves God, he will know first that Jehovah is the most loving and forgiving being in existence, and shame to offend him knowing how forgiving he is will drive a person who loves God to come back. Especially knowing that he has friends and family that are all hoping he does return to God. But if the friends and family just keeps talking to him as if he is still serving God, then what recourse would he have to return? And what does that say about the people still associating with a known transgressor, who has turned his back on the God they are supposed to love more than themselves? Is that person showing God they put him first? No.

    And also, she is still the mom. So she can associate with him on a basis of family (say emergency, grandkids, etc) But she just should always keep in mind this person left Jehovah. Even God associated on a limited basis with those who left him (Job chapters 1 and 2) But eventually, those beings were disfellowshipped. So if it applies to Jehovah, why would it not apply to his subjects?




    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Educate yourself man. Don't disregard the facts and don't capitulate to superstitions. Apply logic and critical thinking to everything you do. That's all I ask.

  15. #75
    I got Soul StreetDreams21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vegas/NY
    Posts
    1,404
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I give a **** about the truth. I give a **** about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones?
    I thought that statistically, the happiest people in the world were Buddhist monks?

    "According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and authored by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe."

    Found this quote. Wouldn't a role in a religious community (ex: member of the church or a priest yourself) count as a social/community network?

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 17:16
  2. Debunking Ape man ancestor myth- WOW.
    By Knicks4lyfe in forum Hangout
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct 03, 2009, 22:28
  3. Religulous
    By LJ4ptplay in forum Hangout
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Nov 10, 2008, 15:10
  4. Our brain. What Evolution cannot account for!
    By Knicks4lyfe in forum Hangout
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Jul 31, 2008, 15:20
  5. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 19:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •