truefusion

Irrelevant; the same conclusion will come from me whether i take Genesis literal or not. But note also that even the early church fathers can be wrong. As mentioned, you can exclude the fact that science mentions that the universe is such and such years old and it still will not change anything. Hence it is irrelevant. If you and the person you quote so chooses to avoid what is written on what occurred on the First Day and choose to avoid what is written on what occurred on the Fourth Day, then that is your own choices. But if you call that scholarly evaluation of the text, then you are only deluding yourselves. I prefer not to repeat myself (as it tends to make words less significant), but i would assume that you still would not see what is obvious. Here is what is obvious (and read carefully): The First Day introduces "day" and "night" but does not explicitly define a value for it. Then there is morning and evening. It is not until the Fourth Day that the sun and the moon enter and is declared as a sign for the people to mark for their days, seasons, et cetera. Tell me, how can there be morning and evening without the sun (and moon)? How can there even be 3 Days previous to the sun and moon and stars' existence? Do you know why the majority of the remaining parts of the Bible assume 24-hour days? (Note that not all instances of the word "day" do not reflect the creation account, as your example otherwise implies.) Because the sun is already in existence and the writer at that point of writing is assuming their own time frame not the beginning where God is creating things. You seem to have reversed my words and formed a straw man. I did not say there cannot be light with the sun, i said there can be light without the sun. For that reason, your rhetorical questions need not a response from me, except perhaps the one concerning night and day. But for that question i have already provided a response multiple times already. Look up again if you want a response. If you are going to try and argue against the Bible, in order to at least seem reasonable, you must accurately represent the very thing you are arguing against, or else you are merely building a straw man. Therefore, if anything you mention is not Biblically accurate, there is no point in me addressing any of your concerns, except perhaps to inform you of your own fallacy. The paradoxical question about God creating something that He cannot lift is a known-to-be-fallacious question. The fallacy is contradicting premises yielding the same conclusion. For that reason, it is not God that is illogical but the question itself and perhaps the one that assumes that the question is at all satisfactory. Unfortunately, not many people know this and therefore assume that when they ask such a paradoxical question that they are stating something logical. I can only hope that you, after reading this, come to the realization of the error of your questioning. The Bible does not mention whether or not the sun was created before the stars or the stars before the sun. The Bible having it in that order does not mean that it occurred in that order for that very Day. That is, if it happened in that day, mentioning it in any order will still allow for any facts to be mentioned for that very Day. Also, if you believe that the stars came before the sun, you should realize that you have no way of proving that. So if i am living in a whacky world for believing that the sun came before the stars, then you too are living in a whacky world for believing that the stars came before the sun. Show me the verse that says all animals to have ever existed, prehistoric and otherwise. You should be able to, right? Such confidence cannot come from falsehood, or can it? Seriously, is it really that hard for the term "all" (though it is not mentioned in Genesis concering the creation account) to mean the animals that are relative to us? Or are words not subject to interpretation in the English language? I have already explained myself. Was i not clear enough? Prehistoric events are just that, prehistoric, events that happened in the past. You cannot prove to me that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely, and to assume that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely will only cause confusion to your own self, of which is obviously not my doing. And as i have already mentioned, in order to formulate what i have written, you must go beyond Genesis 1 into the rest of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 is for assuring that God did indeed create the Earth and all the heavens. Assume that Genesis 1:1 was never written. Could you then derive from Genesis 1 that God created the Earth (and all the heavens)? No, you can't, at least not while remaining Biblically accurate. If you want more reasons, then why doesn't Genesis 1 mention these other heavens that Genesis 1:1 speaks of? The Hebrew for "heavens" is indeed plural, so why aren't they mentioned? Why does the Second Day only include our sky (Biblically known to be the first heaven)? Because Genesis 1:1 is merely a summarization of the entirety of God's creation. The remainder of Genesis is an outlined description of creation of our era. The only way it is not logical i have already mentioned: you have to make assumptions that contradict, though the validity of these assumptions is questioned. Rebirth is a common concept of the Bible. It does not take a scholar to see this, and it in no way means that it can't be also applied to the creation account. The only explanation that i can Biblically derive for the fact that the Earth pre-existed the sun, moon and stars is the concept of Rebirth, continual creations. If you provided an accurate description of God, then you might have had an argument. But until you have one, you have yet to show that God is incapable of constant and consistent work and that what i have said cannot be Biblically derived. 1. I do not recall referencing Genesis, chapter 2. If you are referring to the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 concern the same things, that i cannot help. 2. It doesn't contradict; it is obvious that it is referencing the Third Day. 3. No, it doesn't. Again, this is merely a more thorough description of the Third Day. 4. He did. The story has merely moved up to the Sixth Day. 5. There is no "other man." The Hebrew word for "man" is "Adam." 6. Not necessarily. The names seen on a map today do not necessarily resemble the names of the past. For example, Ephraim and Israel are the same land as referred in the Bible, except where otherwise stated. Only later on in the Bible is Israel referenced as Israel. This shows geographical history. It is also possible that natural events deformed the environment from what it used to be. 7. It is not a lie, nor would i call it a threat; they do indeed become prone to death, death becoming an inevitable conclusion of their lives. 8. It's the same woman, just a more thorough description of her creation. 9. This would be the Sixth Day. The order in which something is mentioned does not necessarily mean the order in which they were created. In the case of Genesis 1, one need only mention what occurred on the Days in order to mention such; the order being insignificant. 10. In the case of Adam and Eve, there would be no biological parents. But it is obvious that they are talking about the future.

I am applying it literally, taking it to its core even (the Hebrew language), and deriving the conclusion i have so provided. And it makes sense. But if you are going to try and state an analogy, at least pick one that relates on equal grounds to the Biblical account of creation. Here is the difference between the intentions of the authors between Shakespeare and Genesis: Shakespeare intented his work as fiction, but the Bible is intended as truth. If you cannot provide an example whose work is intended as truth, then you are mentioning things that are irrelevant and not worth mentioning. No statement was mentioned that said belief was required, at least from me. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that the scientific statements you mentioned are irrelevant. I did read it, and it is not Biblically accurate. The only way to claim that these 6 periods of time are equal in length is to know just how long each period is. You do not know such a thing, and it is impossible to derive that from the Bible alone. For that reason it is illogical to state that these 6 different periods of time are equal in length. To make such an assumption and then state it cannot be true is merely a straw man on your part. Simply having the same word repeated does not mean that they are all of equal length, especially since the First Day introduced "day" and "night" without any explicitly defined value for each. One of the things that helps understand Scripture is context. For that reason, if the concept of night and day is to be assumed for the other 5 Days, then we are to use the First Day as reference. There is no need to change the creation account of Genesis 1, it works fine the way it is, as can be seen from what i have been mentioning. The only thing that the Bible mentions in the creation account that was formless and void was the Earth. Nothing else is stated to be formless and void. The sun is not required for there to be light and darkness (as implied by the First Day); no math is required for either. Nevertheless, your own statement would mean that when God on the First Day caused light to be, that all the stars in the universe were created. But that is not Biblical, as you show in your next statement in your post. The same question but in reverse can be asked to you: Where does it say that they are included? "All creatures" does not imply every single living creature to have ever existed. You even state that it is illogical if prehistoric creatures were included, so how then can you derive that they are included? Fortunately, it doesn't, because the Bible only mentions what is relative to us, only things that concern us. If you require reading the remainder of the Bible to see that it only mentions what concerns us, then you may do so. Life could not be formed that way if you assume a form of creation other than what can be derived from life. Logically, it could easily be formed that way. Even if we consider prehistoric creatures, these prehistoric events would have occurred before the "water world." The only reason why you say it could not have happened is because perhaps you believe in common ancestry. However, from a Biblical point of view, there are many ways to explain similarities in design patterns of creation. Each "era" that shows some form of "evolutionary scale" could again be more instances of recreation that have merely died out to make room for new creations. That is, the Biblical account would tell of the final form of recreation and a new era (unless God so chooses to create again). The only thing that would complicate this theory is the Fourth Day. That is, why would the entire surrounding environment of the Earth have to be rebuilt, so to speak? It would be the fastest way to annihilate existence, and it would follow from the heavens folding like a book. While it may be seen as an exaggerated way to cease creation, it nevertheless consistently follows Biblically. Notice that the Earth is in existence in Genesis 1:2 though there is no mention of it being caused into existence except from what can be derived from Genesis 1:1. This implies that if and when any previous eras ceased to exist, the Earth remained in existence (though the rest of the universe ceases to exist). And so we have a seemingly repetitive form of creation that may cease entirely with this era. Since the Earth survived previous existences, this allowed for the fossils you see here today. It is not surprising that God would use similar patterns in later designs, He is a Creator after all. Likewise, it is not surprising to see consistency in the way He does things. None of what i have mentioned in this requires a rewrite of Genesis and some of the information requires extra Biblical reading to even derive, and it fits within our perception of reality. There is no need for me to look at my own interpretation when you are doing that for me.

It is impossible for you to state what you have so far stated without implying that the Biblical account of creation is false. Thank you for taking the time to write this out, even if briefly. However, there are many assumptions here that aren't Biblical, many statements that aren't Biblical, and statements that assume that some facts mentioned are absolute but are later contradicted by other statements. I will go through them all now and point these things out explicitly. I will start off by stating the parts that contradict themselves inherently. "BB," Big Bang i presume (you'll have to correct me here if i assumed falsely). 13.7 billion years ago is an obvious estimate, but cannot be absolutely proven; the age of the Earth has at least the same credibility as the estimate of the time passed since the Big Bang, and so cannot be absolutely proven. Either way, these two "facts" are irrelevant to the Biblical account and your argument; mentioning them and not mentioning them will yield the same conclusion (as the the chronological summary of Genesis 1 that you post are not dependent on these two things). You might argue that you did not mention that they were absolute facts, but the way you stated them shows that you find them to be undeniable, which is on the same grounds as believing them to be absolutely true. Your summary is actually not Biblical. It is obvious by your statement that you believe that "day" and "night" is the same measurement of time that humans today use (i.e. the earth spinning on its axis). But do i even have to show you the Biblical account in order to show you that this is illogical to assume by your own summary? You say "day" and "night" is measured by the earth rotating on its axis. Tell me, how can you claim such a thing when you state that the earth, the sun and the moon did not come into existence until the third and fourth day? You are failing to recognize even your own summary. "Day" and "night" therefore takes on a whole different meaning; it is no longer what you think it is or thought it was. "Day" and "night" are therefore an undetermined length of time. And so by your own summary we have shown that these "days" for each day of creation are not 24-hour days. And so, while it may not require a genius to see that our measurement for "day" and "night" is a 24-hour revolution of the earth, this information is irrelevant, since it has become obvious that it is fallicious to assume our measurement for "day" and "night." But to mention why your summary is not Biblical: "Creation of the Earth, Seas and Plants," the Earth was already in existence since verse 2 of Genesis. The earth, as Biblically mentioned, at that time was a "water world," a world where the only land was under water (as mentioned by the very same verse). Light was already in existence by the time of the plants, or have you forgotten the First Day? Secondly, the word "made" in Genesis 1:16 (Strongs 06213) can also mean "appoint," which would fit perfectly with the verse's context. So it could be the case that God merely appointed the sun and the moon and the stars on the Fourth Day, which would imply that the sun and the moon (and the stars) were already in existence. As for the remainder of your statements: Again more assumptions (that aren't Biblical). "We know," again, merely an estimate. But just like the other estimates, these are irrelevant to the Biblical account of creation. The creatures mentioned in Genesis 1 do not involve creatures of prehistoric existence or anything around their time or earlier. The moment of creation does not deal with those past events. The Bible only mentions what is relative to us. These animals are what you see in existence today. It is false to assume that they mean anything before them. This is one of the reasons why i mentioned that it requires an entire rewrite of Genesis 1 in order to mix something like the theory of evolution in it. You can talk about all the things pre-existing the timeline of Genesis 1, but that is irrelevant. It is true that it does not take a genius to know about the things you have mentioned. However, perhaps if you took the time to see things clearly on how they are and were actually written, you would then see that your preception of Genesis is merely a rewrite of Genesis and hence claim that it is a myth.

Cool, but i asked why you think it impossible for Christians. It is obvious that you don't think it is possible for yourself. You are right that rewriting the story is not needed. Nevertheless, people still do and therefore claim it is a myth (though the term myth itself doesn't imply falsehood, but it is obvious that you intend it to imply falsehood). Then show me your 12-year education and how it cannot work.

Yes, it is. A Christian can believe in the literal truth(s) of the Bible while concentrating mostly on the New Testament. Why do you think this impossible? Observably, there are three known positions: young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and the position that doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the creation of this universe and all that inhabit it (yes, this involves those that claim to be Christians). Observably, the majority rests in the first two. The third position requires an entire rewrite of the Genesis account in order to fit any newly conceived views, and therefore it is less likely to be seen among Christians. However, i'm sure that even you would agree that claiming that something is stupid because one doesn't understand it is itself illogical. While i would agree that young-earth creationism isn't Biblical, it is not the only position, and after coming to the realization of the information therein, the Genesis account is no longer seen as non-sense.

All three are possible at the same time and all three is generally the case with any believer.

That means error reporting was turned off in PHP. Do you know how annoying it is to have it turned off on you? On my Ubuntu system error reporting was turned off by default when viewing it through the browser by Ubuntu (presumably for security reasons). I can get the errors to show up if i run it through the terminal or if i explicitly tell PHP to enable error reporting.

Note the use of the phrase that we are given common sense. This means we do not originally have common sense (at the time of birth). What happened to it? Arguably, we never had it to begin with. For that reason it is possible for someone to live their entire life without common sense. Common sense can be grouped with pointing out the obvious. Do you know how many people have trouble pointing out the obvious? Did you know that a lot of proverbs and other wise sayings are made up of nothing but of things that point out the obvious? For that reason, simply pointing out the obvious can make you appear wise. Nevertheless, one cannot simply state that they have common sense, for it is uncertain whether you will fail to make use of it under certain conditions. In fact, you may use it for one thing, and then later on in life fail to use it for the very same thing. What happened to our common sense then? You provide a list of things that try to imply that we lack common sense, only to later state that we have been given common sense for a reason. Let us just assume from now on that we do not have common sense and are perhaps attempting to learn what it is and how to use it and when to use it. Doesn't reading and listening to others involve listening to what is in front of our eyes (assuming the person isn't blind)? Therefore they are indeed doing what you wish for.

All you need to run PHP scripts is what can be downloaded and installed from the PHP website. However, if you want to run your scripts in a browser, you'll need a web server that PHP supports. The extension for your PHP scripts can be anything, but what is considered appropriate is "*.php". If you want to separate your PHP 4 scripts from your PHP 5 scripts, then you may give your scripts the extension .php4 and .php5. PHP will work with either, just make sure you don't try to do things that are incompatible with each version when you try to mix in code with different versions.

I do not know of any library or glossary generating script whether they fit your needs or not. But the small script i provided does fit your needs, as far as i understand what you want. The script i have provided is far more simpler than any JavaScript library or glossary generating script and works in accordance to what you have asked for. It may take the easy route in doing things, but so long as it doesn't find the regular expression within title or alternative attributes, et cetera, it should be fine. All you have to do is edit the replacement parameter from the replace method (what i have explicitly pointed out in my previous post). The Reftagger script does something similar to the script i have provided, it just does it better and it only looks up Biblical verses. The reason why both scripts have to be placed at the bottom of the page is because this ensures that the body element will be available to the script on page load. You could try to edit the RefTagger script to fit your needs, but if you do not understand JavaScript except to what can be understood intuitively (assuming it is possible to understand some parts of the script without previous knowledge of JavaScript or similar langauges), then trying to modify a complex JavaScript script i would not recommend to you.

The best method for replacing the contents of an element may be innerHTML. You can find an example on how to use it here: http://javascript.about.com/od/hintsandtips/fl/Use-innerHTML-to-Access-Content-in-HTML-Container.htm

I don't think it is for any objective project. If it were, for example, to be part of a college project, there wouldn't be a need to hide the camera or hide behind objects. The shame that some of his videos display implies that he is just recording things without anyone's permission.

First, be sure you have defined an element that can be retrieved easily by JavaScript (HTML): <img src="" alt="" id="my_image_container"/> Secondly, make an array filled with the paths to all of your images (JavaScript): var images = ["path/1.jpg", "path/2.jpg"];This is the easiest way to do what you want without any server side scripting involved, and so AJAX won't be required. The goal here is to traverse the array whenever the user clicks "next" or "previous." To help make this possible, we'll declare a variable that'll keep track of the current index. We'll give it a default value of 0 since arrays start at 0: var index = 0;Now we'll work on the "next" function (JavaScript): function nextImage() { ++index; if (index < images.length) document.getElementyById('my_image_container').setAttribute('src', images[index]); else { index = -1; nextImage(); } }What this code does is it first increments the index variable, implicitly adding 1 to the number that it holds. It then checks to see if the index is out of bounds; if it isn't, it'll move on to the next image; if it is, it'll reset the index variable to a value suitable for calling nextImage() again. Next we'll start on the "previous" function (JavaScript): function previousImage() { --index; if (index > -1) document.getElementById('my_image_container').setAttribute('src', images[index]); else { index = images.length; previousImage(); } }This function does pretty much the same thing as nextImage(), only with a few things reversed. Now you just have your buttons set up (HTML): <a href="javascript: previousImage();">Previous</a> <a href="javascript: nextImage();">Next</a> The entire code, therefore, should look something like this: <script> var images = ["path/1.jpg", "path/2.jpg"]; var index = 0; function nextImage() { ++index; if (index < images.length) document.getElementyById('my_image_container').setAttribute('src', images[index]); else { index = -1; nextImage(); } } function previousImage() { --index; if (index > -1) document.getElementById('my_image_container').setAttribute('src', images[index]); else { index = images.length; previousImage(); } } </script> <img src="" alt="" id="my_image_container"/> <a href="javascript: previousImage();">Previous</a> <a href="javascript: nextImage();">Next</a> As a training exercise, i'll leave you to do the lastImage() and firstImage() functions.

That would keep the economy flowing. However, when a person exchanges money for something of equal value, have they lost anything if they are the receiver of what they've exchanged the money for? Was it not of equal value? What have they done, then, except maintain their riches? Are they therefore in a position lower than what they were before the purchase? A rich person seeking to remain rich will never put more into something that won't provide them at least equal gain. But Heaven requests that you lose in order to gain. This is the conflict of interests between a rich person and between Heaven. For that reason it is harder for a rich person to enter Heaven than a camel a needle's eye.

Don't use an asterisk (*) when you only want one column (the ID). Secondly, use the LIMIT clause to retrieve only one entry, not every single entry within the table.

What about the old saying that you have to waste money to make money? I believe the part that doesn't make sense is the part about becoming rich without wasting money (or resources), at least practically. If a person could choose any job they wished, if there weren't times of depression where those above did not fire hundreds of people below them just so the ones above can keep their wealth, then there wouldn't be any who goes hungry or homeless. A person who saves and never wastes or makes use of what they have is equal to those who have nothing. What good is their resources then? It is merely for the sake of staring at it. Your interpretation, of course it is not going to make sense, because it doesn't follow from the quoted verse. Your interpretation assumes that simply having lots of money means you'll be punished for it. It is not simply having lots of money that makes it harder for them to get into heaven, but the fact that they are saving it up for nothing is what will make it harder for them to enter heaven. A person who doesn't care about their money will waste it, and the wise will use their money to help the world prosper. But a person not willing to give up their resources is merely selfish. Those who seek more are never filled. Those who have more, more will be asked of. Keeping things all for themselves, therefore, is not beneficial. If anyone wants to be rich, they may seek after it; they just have to keep in mind that there is a bigger picture that is to be painted.

Let's look at the verse you quote and take into account what it says. Look at the beginning, what does it say? It is easier... What does that mean? That rich people cannot enter heaven? Or that it will be very difficult for a rich person to enter heaven? I believe it is obvious that it means that it is just extremely difficult for a rich person to enter heaven, not that it is impossible. Was Jesus rich? Was Mahatma Gandhi? You don't have to be rich to make great changes to the world. Seeking after money isn't necessarily a sin, but the Bible says that the love for money is the root of all evil, that those who seek after it never have enough, and that you can only serve one master. I'm not entirely sure about the Old Testament times, but during the New Testament times, there was indeed a monetary system. It was what the Romans were using at the time which the Jews implemented while under the Romans' rule or observation. Have you read about the part where Jesus was given a coin with Caesar's face on it and how Jesus responded to it? Having a bondservant did not necessarily imply that you were rich. Having a lot of bondservants, maybe; but the law allowed people to become bondservants for the sake of paying back a debt they owed.

YouTube videos are already very compressed, so i don't think you'd be gaining much space back by compressing them even more. If you want to try, you can download Virtual Dub. It's not an advanced video editor, but it works great for converting videos. Just open up the FLV in Virtual Dub, and under Video > Compression, choose your codec. I would suggest something along the lines of DivX. DivX tends to have a good quality-filesize ratio. After picking the compression method, save as an AVI.

Following from web_designer's code, rather than comparing against NULL, the function isset() should be used instead. PHP will not set a variable (or key in this case) unless data was sent using the POST method, therefore the if statament will evaluate to false if either of them is not set. If it still doesn't work, you should check the HTML form element to see if you set the method to "post". By default, the method for forms is "get", and so your code would never show the desired effect in such a case.

I did not go to college to learn how to program. School just basically has you learn faster than what you normally would have if you did it in your spare time and they give you a degree for it. It is easier to learn if you start with a scripting language, like PHP, since they touch on much of what you would with a programming language, though not everything. It should be noted, though, that learning a language does not mean that you know how to build efficient programs/scripts. You may know the language, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to accomplish the same task. Now-a-days, i mostly use C++ and PHP, but i have messed with Python also (though PHP and Python are scripting languages).

A database can store many kinds of "data types." This touches on more primitive parts of programming, but i won't get into that thoroughly. The HTML code is human-readable, and a "string" (a data type that can store text) can contain the entire HTML code without making it into "jumbled text" (binary format). Therefore, when you pull it out of the database, it is as if you opened an HTML file in a text editor.

If i understood you correctly here, then i think there may be a misunderstanding. Let's start with the first example: I would modify it like so: 50 calories from the 100 calories is fat, but the other 50 can be nutrients that is anything but fat and will not necessarily become fat even if it is not used by the body?not all nutrients can be absorbed by the body, saturated fat may turned into cholesterol, protein may be converted into energy, et cetera. For the second one, i would modify it like so: some of it may be turned into fat since the body has no need for it at that time and some of it may be stored in fat for later use, to mean two different things. But i would say you have that last part correct, though the body can convert more than just fat into energy.

Interesting, "Stacey" functions a lot like my CMS. I've been looking for ways to improve my system, and "Stacey" seems like it has some interesting features that would be good to implement into my CMS.

As far as i understand calories when it comes to nutrition, calories are just the measurement of energy that food or edible products can provide. It is not necessarily only fat, and to say that it gets converted into fat by the body isn't necessarily correct. The calories of a product could include all the protein, vitamins, minerals, fiber, fat, et cetera, of the product. These are not necessarily converted into fat, though some may be stored in fat for later use. Some of these things may not even be used for their main purposes and may be converted into energy instead. But in those cases the body could be starving and is trying to keep itself alive.

Bandwidth is any data transferred from the server to the user. A program communicating with another program on the same system does not affect bandwidth. Consider a dynamic page and a static page that contains the same information as the final product of the dynamic page (e.g. cached version of the dynamic page). One will always query the database for the information while the other page doesn't have to because it already has all of the information stored. Both pages are the same size when the dynamic page is done being parsed and generated (let's say 12kbs per page), and so only 12kbs of bandwidth is wasted when you access either page. If you access both pages at the same time, 24kbs of bandwidth is used.