Sorry all, have to do this but the previous post earned me my 100th post and the new title of Full member even though I have been on this forum for 2 years. I obviously did not have much to say  

For those who wish to translate by some means into afrikaans " 'n stil bek is 'n heel bek"

Sorry for the hi-jack but we are used to them in South Africa  

Coenie

Congrats on your 100. The meaning is something like you said.

Coenie

loki is actually very wrong there have been many discoveries of places where biblical stories have taken place and they fit, the city of Jericho was found and there was evidence of the whole site collapsing ect..

sodom and gomorrah was found and there was evidence of huge fires

an old coastline was found 300 feet underwater that was tied to noahs arc

there are many more

they've found proof of goliath and david is mentioned more than jesus in the bible (o.O)

of course we all know that a sling is very deadly and cant be very accurate in the hands of an experienced slinger

Wannabeslinger, I loved your comments.  Good stuff, keep up the good work.


http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm


Revelation 19:11-21





TS

I believe the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and
Luke present two different genealogies. Following through the genealogies,
one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but
also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch
Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus,
and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two
distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph,
and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.
Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind sets out to establish
Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus,
beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and
the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the
males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus..."
Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Christ. The
concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign
to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at
Jesus, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs,
ending with the very first man, Adam.
If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph's name?
Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman's genealogy through
her husband, however, in Luke's day, it was proper and correct. Luke
follows Mary's genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband,
Heli's son-in-law (in legal terms, his son by marriage).
There is no contradiction. 

Sure, only a pleasure. One to you though, here goes.

Quote:


I guess moondrift as sientifically accepted is a farce then, since a couple of billion years of drift ago, the moon would have been touching the earth.

Coenie

Africa Slinger, great points you've made. 


http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html


Blessings in Yahshua,



TS

i commented on the unfeasability of noah's ark, based purely on logistics and intractable nature of wild beasts, and no reply was forthcoming, just a post about the red sea crossing. the locial reson for wheels under the sea (wrecked cargo ship) was ignored and africa_slinger kindly responded to the genealogy question with a reasoned rely - he ignored the point about any genealogy conflicting with the trinity, but raised an astronomical question instead, ie lunar orbital change supposedly contradicting the "old earth" theory. to my scientifically valid reposne, TS in his wisdom congratulates A_S and brings up evolution.
is there ANY possibility that a creationist can debate a particular point without changing the subject?

SV