If Hitler had not formally declared war against eight different countries, his regime may have lasted another decade before the populations of the countries he invaded stood tall and repulsed the invasive armies.
But it's wholly an imaginary hypothetical given that he did in fact attempt to use his armies for the purpose of taking over other countries and those countries unified to defeat the Third Reich in just over three years
Do you even read the stuff you post?
Can you grasp those 2 sentence fragments contradict each other?
If Hitler wouldn't have invaded he would have lasted maybe a decade before the countries he invaded decided to rise up against him.
The 3rd reich was not defeated in anywhere close to 3 years since France & Great Britain declared war on Hitler's Germany in September 1939.
My goodness, just stop.
Do you even read the stuff you post?
Can you grasp those 2 sentence fragments contradict each other?
If Hitler wouldn't have invaded he would have lasted maybe a decade before the countries he invaded decided to rise up against him.
The 3rd reich was not defeated in anywhere close to 3 years since France & Great Britain declared war on Hitler's Germany in September 1939.
My goodness, just stop.
France and GB were almost solely in defensive posture for just over two years until the US began mobilizing in Dec 1941. Just over three years later, Germany surrendered and Hitler killed himself.
It's reasonable to suggest that a military of almost a million troops and funded by the second most financially strong country in Europe might be a bit more troublesome than a few thousand renegade radical Islamists financed by Saudi royalty, but please don't stop wetting yourself and feeling intimidated by the actions of three men in Brussels.....heh
can't compare ISIS to German WWII Forces, a better comparison is ISIS to the NVA during Vietnam Conflict.
assume that ISIS has a few 100 dedicated suicide bombers stationed throughout the EU and you use the 10 to 1 body count ratio, ISIS can easily kill 1 to 2 thousand innocent people this year.
unless there is a way to reduce the kill ratio or reduce the number of suicide bombers, the EU is in big trouble.
assume that ISIS has a few 100 dedicated suicide bombers stationed throughout the EU and you use the 10 to 1 body count ratio, ISIS can easily kill 1 to 2 thousand innocent people this year.
unless there is a way to reduce the kill ratio or reduce the number of suicide bombers, the EU is in big trouble.
Isn't it a matter of time before one of these terrorists blows himself up with a chemical or nuclear weapon? The devastation it will leave in its wake is unimaginable I'm assuming.
It seems these attacks are only gonna get worse & widespread......& Europe is probably in for a mess.
It seems these attacks are only gonna get worse & widespread......& Europe is probably in for a mess.
That's great, but that isn't what you said. What you said isn't at all true.
Um, heh, I never said or suggested that ISIS is more troublesome than Nazi Germany.
But of course that didn't stop you from logging in as you other user name and complementing yourself.
You are a total idiot and loon.
so 3 weeks ago 4 members of ISIS walk into a christian old folks home in Yemen, they tie up and shoot 16 people in the head, 4 of the 16 were nuns, they also kidnapped a priest. Tomorrow is good friday, ISIS says they are going to crucify the priest.
you can't stop people like this by sending John Kerry over to talk to them in order to settle differences. I can only imagine how the 'peace' talks would go...
Q: "what can we do to make things better?"
A: "you can all die"
Q: "well we all can't die, is there anything else we could do, there must be something?"
A: "yes, convert to Islam and help us kill the ones that don't convert"
you can't stop people like this by sending John Kerry over to talk to them in order to settle differences. I can only imagine how the 'peace' talks would go...
Q: "what can we do to make things better?"
A: "you can all die"
Q: "well we all can't die, is there anything else we could do, there must be something?"
A: "yes, convert to Islam and help us kill the ones that don't convert"
1. Genesis 1 says that man was created after the animals. This link explains Genesis 2:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=643
2. The OT genealogies are telescoped, meaning that they don't provide every generation, but are meant to show
lineage, but not every generation in the lineage.
As evidence the genealogies are telescoped (compressed or abbreviated), scholars point to examples such as the genealogy of Moses, which appears four separate times in Scripture (Exodus 6:16-20, Numbers 26:57-59, 1 Chronicles 6:1-3, 23:6-13). Moses’ genealogy is given as Levi to Kohath to Amran to Moses. As straightforward as this seems, related Bible passages suggest that several generations were likely skipped between Amram and Moses.26 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 provides a parallel genealogy of Ephraim, son of Joseph (brother of Levi), from the same period of history as the Mosaic genealogies. While only 4 generations are listed from Levi to Moses, 12 generations listed from Joseph to Joshua during the same time period.
MOSES’ GENEALOGY JOSHUA’S GENEALOGY
Levi Joseph
Kohath Ephraim
Amran Beriah
Raphah
Resheph
Telah
Tahan
Ladan
Ammihud
Elishama
Nun
Moses Joshua
It has been suggested that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only 20 to 40 percent complete. Those who hold that the genealogies are telescoped place the creation of Adam and Eve around 10 to 30 thousand years ago, but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.27
Experts in Old Testament genealogy note there is wide-spread consensus regarding dates and chronology from the time of Abraham. However, prior to Abraham, there is little available Biblical or historical information on which to build a solid chronology. Grudem specifically mentions “prior to Abraham, the setting of dates is very uncertain.”28
In addition to gaps and omissions, genealogical words such as “son” (Hebrew ben), “father” (ab), and “begat” or “fathered” (yalad) are central to this issue. “Son” (ben) has many literal meanings: son, grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson, or descendent. “Father” (ab) can literally mean father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather and ancestor. “Begat” or “fathered” (yalad) is not limited to just the immediate generation, but can also apply to distant generations. R.A. Torrey noted, “The word translated ‘begat’ is sometimes used not of an immediate descendent, but of succeeding generations.” Further, “son” may be a literal son or a distant descendant many centuries removed.29 A good example can be found in Genesis 46:15, which enumerates the offspring of Jacob and Leah: “altogether his sons and his daughters numbered thirty-three.” A careful look at this genealogy reveals that the “sons” (ben) included multiple generations of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons.
As a result, the early Hebrew convention of including just the most historically important individuals in the genealogical record, coupled with the broad meanings of ben, ab, and yalad, raise serious questions whether the Genesis genealogies may be regarded as an absolute chronology pointing back to a 6,000-year-old earth. The genealogies themselves provide a rationale for human origins dating earlier than six to ten thousand years ago.
3. If one believes in a local Noahic flood (as I mentioned in the earlier post) there is no need to fit every species on the boat. And, while the Gilgamesh written account is argued to be older than Genesis, many scholars argues that Gilgamesh indeed took it's account from the actual flood and that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original
4. "Do you think there was nothing at one point, or had God always existed? Or do you think God began out of nothing?"
I believe that God exists outside of time, and always existed...
Chazz, I think you'd be interested in the think tank that is the Discovery Institute, they are a bunch of scientific scholars that promote Intelligent Design issues. They aren't religiously affiliated, and have agnostics on their staff. Recent publications include Stephen Meyers' Signature in the Cell, and Darwin's Doubt (which totally debunks Darwinism) both were NY Times bestsellers. I recommended Signature in the Cell to Choptalk, and he devoured it.
FZ
I might buy those FZ... for years I have dreaded the religious talk, as I consider myself agnostic mostly, I have no religion, but I do believe there has to be something more meaningful than humans. Bad life experiences lead me to abandon the catholic church and become anti-religion.
This week my uncle and godfather passed away, and we experienced a series of events that really has me doubting my agnosticism.
Sorry to hear about your uncle and godfather.. My condolences. If you want to PM to me your address, I'll send you a copy of "Darwin's Doubt" I have a bunch of extra copies...
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/reviews/
Sorry to hear about your uncle and godfather.. My condolences. If you want to PM to me your address, I'll send you a copy of "Darwin's Doubt" I have a bunch of extra copies...
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/reviews/
Thank you man, it was rough to see dad cry... terrible actually. And never had the chance to say goodbye to my uncle but lesson learned. Would you do that really? I am in CR as you probably know but I can give you my Miami box address...
I'll check those books out. I have always thought Darwinism to be flawed.
