Honestly I think history shows that not cutting national ties when entering a new territory is ideal. There is going to be a far greater need for supplies for those starting out on a new planet than those starting out on a new continent. If you were to go to the extreme of cutting citizenship, funding or any help you can basically say we are not going to colonize any new territory in the future. The reason independence is important is when a people do not have a say in policies that are implemented concerning them. An example of this is the 13 colonies in America when they were still loyal to the British Crown; they did not have representation in parliament, and they had to abide by what parliament handed down. This led to a very unfavorable situation for the colonists prompting the American Revolutionary War. The ideal solution is to either give these new colonists representation in their own governments here on earth, or to allow them to become independent when they decide to do so much like what was done with other colonies throughout the 20th century.
tl;dr Independence should not be enforced by the governments or people here but chosen by the colonists there.
According to the Bible the book of Genesis and its events are not how we are to trust that the Bible is true. We accept those facts after we have come to know it is true because Hebrews 11:3 says it is by faith that we know the worlds were framed by the word of God. Do I expect someone who has no faith in the Bible to understand that fact? No.
Isaiah tells us what to look for to determine if there is a divine being, and how to know who that being is: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isaiah 46:10. And this is reasonable. I can't predict the future. I can take a guess at it, but those guesses are limited to within a few hundred years at most. No one from the 16th century predicted that we would have the lives we do, or who would be president or king. We as men do not know those things that far in advance. Yet in the book of Daniel there is a prophecy that even to the critic spans over 2000 years. In the second, seventh, eighth, and eleventh chapters the history of nations from Daniel's time to ours is depicted. I believe the book was written in 6th century BC, but skeptics think it was written as late as 2nd century BC. It can be verified it existed by then because of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament with the apocrypha). If you read Daniel 2, you find that 5 eras are depicted. The reason I say eras rather than nations is because of the ten toes or the divided nations in the dream. The eras have come to be understood from the interpretation given in that chapter of Daniel to be first Babylon, then later on in chapter 7 and 8 and in the account of the fall of Babylon the Medes and Persians are understood to be the next kingdom, then Greece as it is named in chapter 7 though not named in chapter 2, Rome is understood throughout the chapters but never stated, and then a divided kingdom which bears some semblance to the empire that preceded it in that has the elements of Iron still present showing that the divided kingdom is basically divided Rome which we know as present day Europe. Only 5 eras are predicted before the everlasting kingdom comes in. Just to give the skeptic the benefit of argument, let us say Daniel was written at the beginning of the 2nd century BC because it needed some time to become canon to the Jews for it to have the position it does in the Septuagint. That said can you explain to me how only two other national periods have come after the Greek rule? The Assyrians had quite an empire, the Babylonians also, the Persians after them, the Greeks for some time, and then the Romans. Then Europe has remained as the fallout of the Roman Empire with no single figurehead from the day of its breakup until now. There have been at least three attempts at a single empire by Charlemagne, Napoleon and Hitler. Hitler and Napoleon almost dominated all of Europe, but despite being brilliant tacticians made some bad calls at just the right moment. Only 5 eras predicted and that prediction has held the test of time for over 2000 years. That is not by chance.
Now I realize that doesn't prove the whole Bible true, it just proves the book of Daniel is true. But Daniel had supernatural information he was writing that we know is accurate as you study that book more closely. Daniel in chapter 9 quotes Jeremiah as inspired when he tries to understand the content of his vision in chapter 8 and references things that Moses wrote about. So Daniel considered at least the book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy as inspired by the same One who gave him supernatural information. You all should be smart enough to figure out the rest of the connections if you just read without jumping to conclusions immediately.
As for the supposed discrepancies in Genesis 1 and 2, I just want to point out that anyone who has ever read book, manual, specification at some point gets someth
The reason why the rest of us sin as naturally as we do is because of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." There is no need for Jesus if we have not sinned. The definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Romans 7:7 gives us the idea that this is the law of Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20. What gives this law authority is the identify of the law giver which is given in the fourth commandment. In the fourth commandment Jehovah or , for those of you who can read Hebrew, declares Himself the Creator of everything in the earth, sea, and sky. Paul had an understanding of the creation story that influenced his theology as you can see in Romans 5 at least. It influenced Jesus theology on the issue of marriage when the Pharisees asked about divorce (Matthew 19:5), and it influence Peter's theology as he plainly references the flood in his first epistle. That they did not merely view these things as stories that never happened is evident from 2 Peter 1:16. It impacted the whole gospel of John as he identifies Jesus as the Word in John 1:1 shows Him to be Creator in verse 3, and shows His transition to becoming a man in verse 14. When you discredit the creation story, you discredit the entire Bible. How can a book that is apparently wrong on past events be correct about the future or the way of salvation? Either it is all right or all wrong. Even if there was middle ground who is able to judge what is right and wrong?
I find it funny that those who believe in this theory are pleading the Catholics as reasonable scientists. If I remember history correctly, when Galileo tried to challenge the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, they suspected the man of being a heretic and put him under house arrest. These same people put Scripture aside when it fits their dictates. The reason why the whole of Christianity goes to church on Sunday is not because of the Bible, but because that church changed the day, and if you read their publications they are open and bold about it, and they even acknowledge that it is not in Scripture. That Book broke their hold on people from the 16th century onward and they are willing to do anything to get it back. And before you reply saying that that the church didn't change the day to Sunday quote a Bible verse that actually has some meaningful significance to the topic and not something that is an allusion at best.
If you accept evolution, be an avowed atheist already and leave Christianity out of your theory. If you are a Christian, you have a choice to either become an atheist or find how science and the Bible harmonize. For there is true science and false science. That science is not infallible is evident from all the discoveries in history that have changed scientific theory. Yet evolution is treated as an infallible theory that is solid as a rock without room for investigation. I am not going to say that everything someone comes up with as an alternative is correct, but that there are alternatives is something that cannot be overlooked.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly I think history shows that not cutting national ties when entering a new territory is ideal. There is going to be a far greater need for supplies for those starting out on a new planet than those starting out on a new continent. If you were to go to the extreme of cutting citizenship, funding or any help you can basically say we are not going to colonize any new territory in the future. The reason independence is important is when a people do not have a say in policies that are implemented concerning them. An example of this is the 13 colonies in America when they were still loyal to the British Crown; they did not have representation in parliament, and they had to abide by what parliament handed down. This led to a very unfavorable situation for the colonists prompting the American Revolutionary War. The ideal solution is to either give these new colonists representation in their own governments here on earth, or to allow them to become independent when they decide to do so much like what was done with other colonies throughout the 20th century.
tl;dr Independence should not be enforced by the governments or people here but chosen by the colonists there.
According to the Bible the book of Genesis and its events are not how we are to trust that the Bible is true. We accept those facts after we have come to know it is true because Hebrews 11:3 says it is by faith that we know the worlds were framed by the word of God. Do I expect someone who has no faith in the Bible to understand that fact? No.
Isaiah tells us what to look for to determine if there is a divine being, and how to know who that being is: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isaiah 46:10. And this is reasonable. I can't predict the future. I can take a guess at it, but those guesses are limited to within a few hundred years at most. No one from the 16th century predicted that we would have the lives we do, or who would be president or king. We as men do not know those things that far in advance. Yet in the book of Daniel there is a prophecy that even to the critic spans over 2000 years. In the second, seventh, eighth, and eleventh chapters the history of nations from Daniel's time to ours is depicted. I believe the book was written in 6th century BC, but skeptics think it was written as late as 2nd century BC. It can be verified it existed by then because of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament with the apocrypha). If you read Daniel 2, you find that 5 eras are depicted. The reason I say eras rather than nations is because of the ten toes or the divided nations in the dream. The eras have come to be understood from the interpretation given in that chapter of Daniel to be first Babylon, then later on in chapter 7 and 8 and in the account of the fall of Babylon the Medes and Persians are understood to be the next kingdom, then Greece as it is named in chapter 7 though not named in chapter 2, Rome is understood throughout the chapters but never stated, and then a divided kingdom which bears some semblance to the empire that preceded it in that has the elements of Iron still present showing that the divided kingdom is basically divided Rome which we know as present day Europe. Only 5 eras are predicted before the everlasting kingdom comes in. Just to give the skeptic the benefit of argument, let us say Daniel was written at the beginning of the 2nd century BC because it needed some time to become canon to the Jews for it to have the position it does in the Septuagint. That said can you explain to me how only two other national periods have come after the Greek rule? The Assyrians had quite an empire, the Babylonians also, the Persians after them, the Greeks for some time, and then the Romans. Then Europe has remained as the fallout of the Roman Empire with no single figurehead from the day of its breakup until now. There have been at least three attempts at a single empire by Charlemagne, Napoleon and Hitler. Hitler and Napoleon almost dominated all of Europe, but despite being brilliant tacticians made some bad calls at just the right moment. Only 5 eras predicted and that prediction has held the test of time for over 2000 years. That is not by chance.
Now I realize that doesn't prove the whole Bible true, it just proves the book of Daniel is true. But Daniel had supernatural information he was writing that we know is accurate as you study that book more closely. Daniel in chapter 9 quotes Jeremiah as inspired when he tries to understand the content of his vision in chapter 8 and references things that Moses wrote about. So Daniel considered at least the book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy as inspired by the same One who gave him supernatural information. You all should be smart enough to figure out the rest of the connections if you just read without jumping to conclusions immediately.
As for the supposed discrepancies in Genesis 1 and 2, I just want to point out that anyone who has ever read book, manual, specification at some point gets someth
The reason why the rest of us sin as naturally as we do is because of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." There is no need for Jesus if we have not sinned. The definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Romans 7:7 gives us the idea that this is the law of Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20. What gives this law authority is the identify of the law giver which is given in the fourth commandment. In the fourth commandment Jehovah or , for those of you who can read Hebrew, declares Himself the Creator of everything in the earth, sea, and sky. Paul had an understanding of the creation story that influenced his theology as you can see in Romans 5 at least. It influenced Jesus theology on the issue of marriage when the Pharisees asked about divorce (Matthew 19:5), and it influence Peter's theology as he plainly references the flood in his first epistle. That they did not merely view these things as stories that never happened is evident from 2 Peter 1:16. It impacted the whole gospel of John as he identifies Jesus as the Word in John 1:1 shows Him to be Creator in verse 3, and shows His transition to becoming a man in verse 14. When you discredit the creation story, you discredit the entire Bible. How can a book that is apparently wrong on past events be correct about the future or the way of salvation? Either it is all right or all wrong. Even if there was middle ground who is able to judge what is right and wrong?
I find it funny that those who believe in this theory are pleading the Catholics as reasonable scientists. If I remember history correctly, when Galileo tried to challenge the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, they suspected the man of being a heretic and put him under house arrest. These same people put Scripture aside when it fits their dictates. The reason why the whole of Christianity goes to church on Sunday is not because of the Bible, but because that church changed the day, and if you read their publications they are open and bold about it, and they even acknowledge that it is not in Scripture. That Book broke their hold on people from the 16th century onward and they are willing to do anything to get it back. And before you reply saying that that the church didn't change the day to Sunday quote a Bible verse that actually has some meaningful significance to the topic and not something that is an allusion at best.
If you accept evolution, be an avowed atheist already and leave Christianity out of your theory. If you are a Christian, you have a choice to either become an atheist or find how science and the Bible harmonize. For there is true science and false science. That science is not infallible is evident from all the discoveries in history that have changed scientific theory. Yet evolution is treated as an infallible theory that is solid as a rock without room for investigation. I am not going to say that everything someone comes up with as an alternative is correct, but that there are alternatives is something that cannot be overlooked.