Question aimed more towards Christians lol

[Daddy]

evolution also has nothing to do with the origin of life.

[Bolivian Army]

probably getting rid of your bacterial infection

can't i just evolve to be resistant to it like the bugs did?

[Daddy]

can't i just evolve to be resistant to it like the bugs did?

are you holding a leaf stone

[Himu]

evolution also has nothing to do with the origin of life.

GOD DAMNIT STOP THAT ;-;

I'm going to break it down as simply as I can.  Organismismism changing over time to another organism.

[Bolivian Army]

are you holding a leaf stone

is that some pokemon nerd thing

[Daddy]

GOD DAMNIT STOP THAT ;-;

I'm going to break it down as simply as I can.  Organismismism changing over time to another organism.

it's actually a species changing. the organism itself doesn't ever evolve into another organism.

so do you use antibiotics or not

[Daddy]

is that some pokemon nerd thing

battleship trek

[Zach]

I know that this is most likely a completely ignorant opinion (in your eyes), but I just believe that the bible is too simple of an explanation to explain how the universe was created, and that the universe is too complex for the evolution theory to be completely reliable.  Sorry. ;-;

Question #1:  What was the real order of creation?  The Bible jumps around a lot with that.

Question #2: According to the Bible, Jesus has said three different things before he died according to three different New Testament authors.  Did he somehow die three times?  Explain?

First off, please provide the verses if you can for question two. That'd be easier than reading through all of it looking for the quotations.

Also, I'm going to copy/paste some stuff from various websites, so it probably won't read as one coherent argument.

Anyway, about the order of creation, there are many different theories, with perhaps the most popular one being that Genesis was compiled from the writing of many different authors. However, many Christians argue against that theory.

The argument that you'll see the most from Christians is that the first chapter (plus the first three verses of chapter two) is the creation of the world from the standpoint of God, while the second chapter is from the standpoint of man. Some suggest that Hebrew scriptures use different names for God throughout, depending on the characteristics of God which the author wished to emphasize. They argue that across the Hebrew scriptures, the use of Elohim in the first segment suggests "strength," focusing on God as the mighty Creator of the universe, while the use of Yahweh in the second segment suggested moral and spiritual natures of deity, particularly in relationship to the man.

The modern division of the Bible into chapters dates from c.1200 AD, and the division into verses somewhat later. The distinction between Genesis 1 and 2 is therefore a relatively recent development. Many Biblical scholars regard Genesis as beginning with two accounts of the creation, 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-2:25, each with its own focus of attention, with 2:4a forming a bridge between them. The argument is based on several grounds, notably the fact that Genesis 1 uses the phrase "heavens and earth" to introduce and close the Creation, while the account in Chapter 2 is introduced by the phrase "earth and heavens."

Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated ââ,¬Å"formedââ,¬Â� could easily have been translated ââ,¬Å"had formed.ââ,¬Â� In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

"Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had ââ,¬Å"moldedââ,¬Â� them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: ââ,¬Å"He had molded.ââ,¬Â� The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible."

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupoldââ,¬â,,¢s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that ââ,¬Å"it is possible to translate formed as ââ,¬Ëœhad formedââ,¬â,,¢ ââ,¬Â�. Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that ââ,¬Å"our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicateââ,¬â€�EL] would be simply this: ââ,¬ËœGod brought to Adam the beasts which He had formedââ,¬â,,¢ ââ,¬Â�. Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: ââ,¬Å"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply ââ,¬Å"formedââ,¬Â� (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered ââ,¬Å"had formed.ââ,¬Â� And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

I can find more stuff to post, but at this point I think that I'm running the risk of this being a completely incoherent blob.

On a final note, is it not reasonable to assume the intent of the stories was not necessarily to demonstrate the specific methodology of creation to a stone age people but rather to teach about the nature of God, not to explain the specific biological, geological, or biochemical specifics?

[Daddy]

Zach:
"Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - Mark and Matthew
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:34&version=31;
too lazy to search for matthew's account. i think his might have been in hebrew/aramaic (whatever this one wasn't in)

"It is finished" - John
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:30;&version=31;

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." - Luke
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:46;&version=31;


with the former, it sounds like he is upset that he has to do it.

[Himu]

it's actually a species changing. the organism itself doesn't ever evolve into another organism.

so do you use antibiotics or not

...you've always got to come out on top don't you

yes, and i know you've got a million facts to support evolution to go with that


also if i hear the answer "translation error LOL" as an answer to my second question i will personally tear up all the bibles in the world and remake them as toilet paper >:\

[Zach]

...you've always got to come out on top don't you

yes, and i know you've got a million facts to support evolution to go with that


also if i hear the answer "translation error LOL" as an answer to my second question i will personally tear up all the bibles in the world and remake them as toilet paper >:\

i will have your answer, but it may not necessarily be tonight, so sit tight.

[Daddy]

...you've always got to come out on top don't you

yes, and i know you've got a million facts to support evolution to go with that

I spread reason through the tcp/ip

also if i hear the answer "translation error LOL" as an answer to my second question i will personally tear up all the bibles in the world and remake them as toilet paper >:\

I like my theory of Jesus using his powers to place each in their own timeline.

i will have your answer, but it may not necessarily be tonight, so sit tight.

just use my answer, it is much better.

[guff]

who would win jesus or sylar 

and if sylar won would he become our savior 

[Himu]

Question #3: Judas, Judas, Judas.  He betrayed Jesus, felt guilty, hung himself.  I'm not sure if it was said if he went to heaven or hell, but the latter would totally prove God as an unjust God.  It was Jesus' plan that he would be betrayed by his disciple resulting in his death.  Couldn't he just prevent that from happening?

This question might have mistakes because the only story I know by heart is Samson and Delilah lol

[Daddy]

unicron

unicron always wins

Question #3: Judas, Judas, Judas.  He betrayed Jesus, felt guilty, hung himself.  I'm not sure if it was said if he went to heaven or hell, but the latter would totally prove God as an unjust God.  It was Jesus' plan that he would be betrayed by his disciple resulting in his death.  Couldn't he just prevent that from happening?

if judas's betrayal of jesus was required for jesus to be sacrificed for humanity's sins would that also mean that sending judas to hell would be assbackwards?

jesus died for humanity's sins and rules over all
judas died to allow jesus to die for our sins and suffers in hell forever.

not that i believe either, but it is an interesting philosophical/theologic issue

This question might have mistakes because the only story I know by heart is Samson and Delilah lol

what about jonah and the whale