David

Genesis 13:13

Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly

Romans 1:26-28

That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error. 28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.

1 Corinthians 6:9, 10

Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

NEBRASKA MAN AND THE TOOTH OF A PIG!

““Discovery and Examination

In February of 1922, Harold Cook wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of the tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. The tooth had been found years prior in the Upper Snake Creek beds of Nebraska along with other fossils typical of North America. Dr. Osborn received the specimen in March of 1922, and quickly set out to identify it. Osborn, along with Dr. William D. Matthew soon came to the conclusion that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape (now referred to as simians). They then passed the tooth along to William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman who agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. Only a few months later, an article was published in Science announcing the discovery of a manlike ape in North America.[1] An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

Retraction

From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serus. The misidentification was attributed to the fact that the original specimen was severely weathered. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.”-Wikapedia

-------------------------------------------------------------

PILTDOWN MAN

“In 1912 Piltdown Man hit the headlines. Evidence of the evolutionary 'missing link' between apes and humans had been found, in England. For the next 40 years this momentous discovery influenced research into human evolution.

Then in 1953 Piltdown hit the headlines again, this time revealed as a hoax, a scientific fraud of shocking proportions. Who did it and why? Follow the story so far.

Evidence of fraud

Their results proved that the skull and jaw fragments actually came from 2 different species, a human and an ape, probably an orangutan. Scratches on the surfaces of the teeth, visible under the microscope, revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human. They also discovered that most of the finds from the Piltdown site had been artificially stained to match the local gravels.

The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and a sophisticated scientific fraud. “-Natural History Museum www site

--------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHOPTERYX NOT AN TRANSITIONAL FOR OR MISSING LINK.

Fully Fledged Flying Bird

A number of features peculiar to Archaeopteryx led to evolutionists interpreting it as a snapshot of the so-called evolutionary transition between reptiles and birds. They suggested that this fossil of a 150-million-year-old extinct bird bore the half-reptilian characteristics of a species that had lived long before birds. Archaeopteryx appeared to have feathered claws on its wings, teeth in its jaw, and a reptile-like bony tail —characteristics that led to its being interpreted as proof of the theory of evolution.

According to that theory, certain small dinosaurs called Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs had gradually developed their forelegs into wings and gradually became able to fly by leaping onto their prey from high branches. As a part of this scenario, Archaeopteryx was the first species to branch off from its alleged dinosaur forerunners and begin to fly. This hypothesis can be found repeated in just about every evolutionist publication.

The latest examinations of Archaeopteryx fossils, however, have shown that this creature was definitely not an transitional form. It is merely an extinct species of birds with several features that are somewhat different from those of modern-day birds. Scientists today agree that Archaeopteryx possessed a skeleton, feather structure, and flight muscles identical to those of present-day birds. In addition, scientific examination has proven that with its breastbone and asymmetric feather structure, Archaeopteryx was a fully fledged flying bird. (Nature, August 1996, and Dunbar)

"It Is Easy Enough To Make Up Stories Of How One Form Gave Rise To Another .. But Such Stories Are Not A Part Of Science, For There Is No Way Of Putting Them To The Test."

As we seem to understand, the universe is expanding, so if we put thing in reverse then it must go back to nothing, that is beyond (back in time) The Big Bang.

Nothing?

JESUS SAID:-

Matthew 6:9

“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your NAME be sanctified.

‘THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES’ ( 2ND ED) CH. 15. PP.395-396 PUBLISHED BY OXFORD WORLD’S CLASSICS“

“RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.. . . Hence we may look with some confidence to secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.”

why is it that we have become better and better at NOT living together and better and better at killing each other, why is it that we know we are destroying the earth but continue to do so when we are supposed to be wiser and wiser, and why are we greeder and greeder insted of sefless as wisdom decrees, etc. etc..?

Commentin on the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures rendering of “and The Word was a god” the book ‘Truth in Translation’ by Jason David BeDuhn pages 115-116 it says:-

“In Greek if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean “a god.” The kind of sentence we are dealing with is one with be-verb, where the predicate noun (theos) is in the same noun form (the same “case”) as the subject noun (ho logos). In this subject (“normative”) form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different that the definite ho theos, as different as “a god” is from “God” in English. In other words, John uses the indefinite theos in a manner distinct from his use of the definite ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the words take, but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word “was with” ho theos, “God,” but on the other hand that the Word “was” theos, “a god.” It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are comparing take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same.

The definite article also can be used in Greek, even when it is not necessary to mark a word’s definiteness, to signify that you are still talking about the same thing you were talking about before. Having introduced “God” and “the Word,” John would use the definite article to help his readers keep track of the fact he is still talking about the same Word. But having mentioned “God” once in 1:1b (“the word was with God”), John does not use the definite article again with theos until 1:2 (“this one was with God”), skipping right over the theos of 1:1c (“the word was a god”). This middle theos, we are left to conclude is not exactly the same thing as the “God” of 1:1b and 1:2.

It John had wanted to say “the Word was God,” as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite “the” (ho) the word “god” (theos), making it “the god” and therefore “God.” He could have simply written ho logos ēn ho theos (wore-for-word: “the word was the god”), or ho logos ho theos ēn (word-for-word: “the word the god was”). But he didn’t. If John didn’t why do the translators?”

CAN GOD FEAR HIMSELF?

If Jesus is part of a Trinitarian God, how can he (Jesus) “fear” God?

Isaiah 11:1-3

And there must go forth a twig* out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear** of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah.

*Jesus

X-Ref. to Isaiah 11:1

*Ruth 4:17

Then the neighbor ladies gave it a name, saying: “A son has been born to Na´o•mi.” And they began to call his name O´bed. He is the father of Jes´se, David’s father.

*Samuel 17:58

Saul now said to him: “Whose son are you, boy?” to which David said: “The son of your servant Jes´se the Beth´le•hem•ite.”

*Romans 15:12

And again Isaiah says: “There will be the root of Jes´se, and there will be one* arising to rule nations; on him nations will rest their hope.”

*Jesus

**Hebrews 5:7

In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his GODLY FEAR (“reverent submission” N.R.S.V., T.N.I.V.).

How can the Hebrew VERB “Hayah” at Ex. 3:14 be translated into the First Person Personal Pronoun “I am,” when the Hebrew word for “I am” is “an-ee,” is not found in Ex 3:14??

"Hayah" Kal fut*. 1 pers. sing."

"An-ee" 1st pers. pron. 1 pers. sing. com.

Zionists only please, thank you.