A challenge to Qdrop

[racer5.0stang]

Explain, in your own words, how the moon came into existance.

[Qdrop]

God made it.




are you challenging my knowledge of astronomy?
if i can't successfully give you detailed summary of the prevailing theories, i know nothing of science and therefore should never speak of science again?

is that your strategy?


*pssst- this is where you reply "stop stalling, start writing!"

[racer5.0stang]

God made it.




are you challenging my knowledge of astronomy?
if i can't successfully give you detailed summary of the prevailing theories, i know nothing of science and therefore should never speak of science again?

is that your strategy?


*pssst- this is where you reply "stop stalling, start writing!"

No, I simply wanted to know your opinion on the subject.

[100% ILL]

Well You see, billions and billions of years ago.........spinning mass..........shot out from what is now earth...............natural satelite........you see?

[dublirie04]

Well You see, billions and billions of years ago.........spinning mass..........shot out from what is now earth...............natural satelite........you see?
I thought it was a chunk of cheese that was released from an alien craft cause it got moldy and stinky. Correct me if I am the wrong one here. :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

No, I simply wanted to know your opinion on the subject.

well, like many things in the solar system, their are prevailing theories, but no perfect answer yet.
need more research.

the prevailing theory is that the earth was impacted long ago by another large planet or asteroid....
the collision launched large amounts of debri and gas in to orbit around earth...eventually coalescing (forming) into the moon we see today.

this is supported by the similarities we see in the mineral and properities of the moon with the earth.

however...there are still some issues with this theory.

it's still more likely than the moon being an "old captured planet" or some other debris the the earth orbit caught...
the earth and moon have too many simularities to make that very likely.
plus, i don't think the moon has a core like other planets.....so it isn't a formed planet in the popular sense....

[100% ILL]

I thought it was a chunk of cheese that was released from an alien craft cause it got moldy and stinky. Correct me if I am the wrong one here. :rolleyes:

Well I believe NASA has confirmed that it is indeed not cheese at all. However, there may have been aliens involved, so just in case they spend millions of dollars to try and find out if the're still out there.

http://www.bright.net/~phobia/

[Qdrop]

Well You see, billions and billions of years ago.........spinning mass..........shot out from what is now earth...............natural satelite........you see?


no, that is very old and disproved theory....

actually, i think Darwin spawned that one.

[racer5.0stang]

the prevailing theory is that the earth was impacted long ago by another large planet or asteroid....
the collision launched large amounts of debri and gas in to orbit around earth...eventually coalescing (forming) into the moon we see today.

Is this the same theory that is believed to have killed the dinosaurs?

[dublirie04]

Well I believe NASA has confirmed that it is indeed not cheese at all. However, there may have been aliens involved, so just in case they spend millions of dollars to try and find out if the're still out there.

http://www.bright.net/~phobia/
Come we go reason.

TO THE MOON-- :eek: :rolleyes: (!)

[Qdrop]

Is this the same theory that is believed to have killed the dinosaurs?

unlikely.....the timing is way off.....

the moon was formed long before any records of dinosaurs.....or even any record/theory of life as far as i know.
billions of year ago.

the moon likely was formed not long after earth formed.
all the current scientific models have them close to the same age.

[Qdrop]

so Racer,

are you "proving your point"?

[ASsman]

Yes explain the Moon. Then explain the magic of Hard-core Porn. Only God could have created such a great thing.

[Qdrop]

Then explain the magic of Hard-core Porn. Only God could have created such a great thing.

admitantly, THAT is hard to argue against.

[100% ILL]

Yes explain the Moon. Then explain the magic of Hard-core Porn. Only God could have created such a great thing.

http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_pornography.htm

[ASsman]

"A challenged Qdrop" , ZING!

And I don't lust for the women I wack off to. They are dirty. But let me get this straight, I can't wank, but I can drink and smoke cigarettes?

[100% ILL]

you can "do" anything you want.

[Qdrop]

http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_pornography.htm

what a pathetic link.

[ASsman]

Excellent.

[100% ILL]

Live it up Q-drop, time is short relatively speaking.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

[Qdrop]

Live it up Q-drop, time is short relatively speaking.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

and you call yourself a christian?

you are a morbid mutherfucker.


you just made jesus cry.....are you happy now?

[100% ILL]

I thought you would appreciate the humor

[Qdrop]

I thought you would appreciate the humor

don't apologize to me.....apologize to jesus!!

[100% ILL]

I have done nothing wrong. I just pointed out that you will die.

By the way, the clock IS ticking.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

[Ace42]

Well You see, billions and billions of years ago.........spinning mass..........shot out from what is now earth...............natural satelite........you see?

Have you been living in a hole for the last 40 years? Actually, don't answer that.

A third early idea was that early Earth spun so fast that it spun off the moon. This idea would produce a moon similar to Earth's mantle, but it failed when analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved indicated that the present Earth-moon system could not form in this way.

You, as an American, might be surprised to know this, but some "astronauts" have actually been to "the moon" and dug up some "moon rock"

(...)the moon has no substantial metallic iron core, that its rocks are grossly similar in composition to the earth's mantle (its oxygen isotopic ratios are identical to the earth's), but that the lunar rocks are slightly enriched in refractory elements and are strongly depleted in volatiles. (...) A giant impact provides just the right circumstances for a body with the moon's peculiar chemical composition to arise. The vapor squirted from the contact point between the proto-earth and the impacting smaller protoplanet would consist predominantly of material from the mantles of the two objects and should exclude core metal. Condensing in space, the high-speed cloud of rock vapor would preferentially incorporate refractory elements, while volatile elements would be slow to condense and hence may be greatly depleted.

Jeez, if you are going to try and mock scientific theory, at least try to have even a cursory understanding of what you are mocking.

There are many theories as to the origin of the moon. One is that it was an asteroid like body that was deflected by the Sun's gravity (a scientifically observable phenomenon) and ensnared by the Earth's gravity in an orbit where it remains to this day (again, a scientifically observable phenomenon. It is this principle that mankind has used to put TV Sattelites into space so you hicks can watch televangelists talking cod-shit)

Another is that the moon was a solar body that followed a solar cycle between Mars and Earth in a decaying orbit that resulted in it being ensnared by the Earth's gravity.

However, Ill and Racerstang, rest assured that the moon isn't locked into a perfect circle attached to a black canopy on which the stars are pin-pricks through which the light of heaven shines. Mankind has been into space (unless you are going to tell me the moon-landings were faked?) and they didn't get stuck on the black-sheet.

Oh, what a surprise, the same people that wrote the KJA bible were wrong about how the world works. Obviously these people are pre-eminently qualified to translate and edit ancient texts which should be believed even when it disagrees with observable fact!

For racerstang's benefit, here is one piece of modern thinking, freely available on Google. If you do not understand the science behind the explanation, there is a whole internet of explanatory reasoning to help you.

The idea in a nutshell:

At the time Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, other smaller planetary bodies were also growing. One of these hit earth late in Earth's growth process, blowing out rocky debris. A fraction of that debris went into orbit around the Earth and aggregated into the moon.

Why this is a good hypothesis:

* The Earth has a large iron core, but the moon does not. This is because Earth's iron had already drained into the core by the time the giant impact happened. Therefore, the debris blown out of both Earth and the impactor came from their iron-depleted, rocky mantles. The iron core of the impactor melted on impact and merged with the iron core of Earth, according to computer models.

* Earth has a mean density of 5.5 grams/cubic centimeter, but the moon has a density of only 3.3 g/cc. The reason is the same, that the moon lacks iron.

* The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions. This shows that the moon formed form material formed in Earth's neighborhood.

* If a theory about lunar origin calls for an evolutionary process, it has a hard time explaining why other planets do not have similar moons. (Only Pluto has a moon that is an appreciable fraction of its own size.) Our giant impact hypothesis had the advantage of invoking a stochastic catastrophic event that might happen only to one or two planets out of nine.

[ASsman]

(again, a scientifically observable phenomenon. It is this principle that mankind has used to put TV Sattelites into space so you hicks can watch televangelists talking cod-shit)
GAHAHAHAHA! Thank God for these Huggies adult diapers. I might have ruined my leather chair.

[ms.peachy]

This is my favourite thread so far today.

[ASsman]

http://subscribe.theonion.com/product_info.php?cPath=5_12&products_id=79

[yeahwho]

dead stars, don't talk.

[racer5.0stang]

However, Ill and Racerstang, rest assured that the moon isn't locked into a perfect circle attached to a black canopy on which the stars are pin-pricks through which the light of heaven shines. Mankind has been into space (unless you are going to tell me the moon-landings were faked?) and they didn't get stuck on the black-sheet.

Oh man... there goes that theory.

Why this is a good hypothesis:

*Because honestly we don't know and it sounded good to us.*

[ASsman]

......

[Ace42]

*Because honestly we don't know and it sounded good to us.*

Heh, again you are incapable of understanding simple rational thought.

By your argument, having multiple hypothesis means that all are insufficient to be considered an adequet explanation.

That is like me putting my car keys down, coming back to find they are not where I left them, and saying:

Well, my hypotheses are:
1. They moved due to gravity. This is unlikely because they were far from the edge of the sruface I put them on, and I didn't find them directly below it. It is possible, as my keys have been subject to gravity and fallen off the object I put them on, onto the floor below in the past.

2. It was moved by my wife. This is unlikely as she was out at the time shopping. This is a possible explanation, because my wife occasionaly moves my keys.

3. It was moved by my son. This is the most likely theory, as they were found next to the TV remote which had been used by someone / something to put on precisely the programs my son always watches. This is a possible explanation because my son occasionaly moves my keys.

4. There was an Earthquake and they were thrown clear against the wall. This was unlikely as I do not live in an area prone to Earthquakes. This is a possible explanation, as an Earthquake *would* cause my keys to move.

And then saying - OH, But, as we weren't there and didn't see it, and because there are more than one hypothesis, we can't possibly assume it is three.

Instead, we have to believe the explanation which has *no* evidence behind it whatsoever - that *God* mysteriously and magically moved my keys for some inexplicable reason!

I mean, explanation 3 sounded pretty good to me, even though, not having seen it, I couldn't know for sure. But hell, let's just put it down to God, that's a MUCH better theory!

[racer5.0stang]

You forgot one.

5. Ace's imaginary friend moved the keys.

[Ace42]

You forgot one.

5. Ace's imaginary friend moved the keys.

His name is "Jesus".

[racer5.0stang]

His name is "Jesus".


Is he Mexican?

[Qdrop]

Racer, as my previous thread to you and Ill pointed out....

you don't even understand relatively basic and accepted scientific knowledge and theory.......

thus proving you exempt from discussion of it.

stick to what you know.....like quotes from the bible.

you really have no credibilty to do anything else now........you lost that.

[Ace42]

Is he Mexican?

He is the son of God, heretic.

[100% ILL]

Racer, as my previous thread to you and Ill pointed out....

you don't even understand relatively basic and accepted scientific knowledge and theory.......

thus proving you exempt from discussion of it.

stick to what you know.....like quotes from the bible.

you really have no credibilty to do anything else now........you lost that.

You're so authoritative and pompous it's almost inspiring.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

[Qdrop]

You're so authoritative and pompous it's almost inspiring.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M


thank you, thank you.....

i only have 40 years left....so i have alot of work to do.




sicko...

[100% ILL]

Barring an accident, yes.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

[ASsman]

It's all good as long as I repent before the clock stops.

[Qdrop]

It's all good as long as I repent before the clock stops.

exactly.

it's in the bible, right?
:rolleyes:

[racer5.0stang]

It's all good as long as I repent before the clock stops.

Who would you repent to? and for what?

[Ace42]

Allah. Didn't you know he is the one true God? The Muslims have a book which says so and everything.

[100% ILL]

Yes, I've read the Qur'an. Muhammad is his prophet


Quotations:
bullet "The messenger of Allah said: "Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,

[Ace42]

Oh really? You'd be surprised the number of Christians who claim to have read the Qu'ran in an attempt to legitimise their position, but who actually have not.

Not that I am the sort to call you a liar, but your track-record when dealing with objective fact is not exactly the hottest.

[100% ILL]

It's okay, you can call me a liar if you wish. I find Islam to be a religion based on "good works" and their paradise is somewhat self-centered.


Sura 56:1-40 of the Qur'an deals in depth with the Day of Judgment and the rewards that await persons who have led a good life.
bullet 56:15-21: "[They will sit] on gold-encrusted thrones of happiness, reclining upon them, facing one another in [love]. Immortal youths will wait upon them with goblets, and ewers, and cups filled with water from unsullied springs by which their minds will not be clouded and which will not make them drunk; and with fruit of any kind that they choose, and with flesh of any fowl that they may desire."
bullet 56:22-26: "And [accompanying them will be their] companions pure, most beautiful of eye, like unto pearls hidden in their shells. [This will be] a reward for what they did [during life]. No empty talk will they hear there, nor any call to sin, but only the tiding of inner soundness and peace."
bullet 56:27-33: "Now as for those who have attained to righteousness- what of those who have attained to righteousness? [They too will find themselves] admist fruit-laden lote-trees, and acacias flower-clad, and shade extended, and waters gushing, and fruit abounding, never-failing and never out of reach."
bullet 56:34-37: "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high; for behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins,full of love, well matched to those who have attained to righteousness"
bulletSurah 55 discusses the presence of Houris who are described as beautiful virgins:
bullet 55:70: "In them will be fair [Maidens], good, beautiful."
bullet 55:72: "Maidens restrained [as to their glances], in [goodly] pavilions."
bullet 55:74: "Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched."
bullet Surah 44:51-55 and 52:17-20 state that the men in Paradise will enter marriage with the Houris.


Christianity teaches you can do no good work to get to heaven, only repent and believe in Christ.

http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

http://deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=100%25%20ILL&db=10/6/1973&s=M

[Ace42]

Christianity teaches you can do no good work to get to heaven, only repent and believe in Christ.

Yeah, if you discount the book of James, which numerous non-Lutheran denominations accept as a matter of course.

James says quite clearly that repenting and faith is not enough to enter the kingdom of heaven. Luther *chose* to disregard this book because it did not agree with *his* concept of "salvation through faith alone."

Thus, the KJA bible which you follow (which is the direct product of Lutheran thought, and only includes numerous books solely as non-cannonical reference material. A fact overlooked by many fundamentalists) only states that because ONE MAN chose to cut out some books from the bible. Something which (correct me if I am wrong) the bible itself says is a no no.

Yet again the fundamentalists confuse their subsect bastardisation of a dogmatic twisting of the core tenants of protestantism, with the umbrella term of "Christianity" - what a surprise.

And reading a few bulleted paragraphs in an article on some Christian website does not qualify as "having read the Qu'ran" - neither does copy and pasting arbitrary stanzas.

[100% ILL]

Yeah, if you discount the book of James, which numerous non-Lutheran denominations accept as a matter of course.

James says quite clearly that repenting and faith is not enough to enter the kingdom of heaven. Luther *chose* to disregard this book because it did not agree with *his* concept of "salvation through faith alone."

Thus, the KJA bible which you follow (which is the direct product of Lutheran thought, and only includes numerous books solely as non-cannonical reference material. A fact overlooked by many fundamentalists) only states that because ONE MAN chose to cut out some books from the bible. Something which (correct me if I am wrong) the bible itself says is a no no.

Yet again the fundamentalists confuse their subsect bastardisation of a dogmatic twisting of the core tenants of protestantism, with the umbrella term of "Christianity" - what a surprise.

And reading a few bulleted paragraphs in an article on some Christian website does not qualify as "having read the Qu'ran" - neither does copy and pasting arbitrary stanzas.

Well I certainly can't post my personal copy on the board for you now can I?

All James is saying is your faith is evident by your works. If you claim to have faith in God, but there is no outward evidence of that faith then do you really have it?

And I assume you are referring to the Apocrypha. I posted this earlier and I don't know if you saw it so here it is again.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:


http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M


http://deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=100%25%20ILL&db=10/6/1973&s=M

[ASsman]

Hmmm, are you like reviewing the Bible? Giving it 2 thumbs up. Because it doesn't seem like to can give anything BUT an opinion on it. And why does what the Jews thought about anything matter all of a sudden. Obviously they rejected your savior. Why does their rejection of a book become credible?


"God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray, p. 90 " I must find the quote were it is said that "he who believes there is only one Bible is a dipshit", or something.

[100% ILL]

Hmmm, are you like reviewing the Bible? Giving it 2 thumbs up. Because it doesn't seem like to can give anything BUT an opinion on it. And why does what the Jews thought about anything matter all of a sudden. Obviously they rejected your savior. Why does their rejection of a book become credible?

Ha, that's laughable. All you do is post opinions.

The Jews rejected Jesus, they did not believe he was the Messiah. THEREFORE , they do not recognize the New Testament. HOWEVER, the Old Testament, and the books of the Apocraphy were written prior to Christ. The Jews hold the Old Testament Canon in High regard. It is there BIBLE, but they do not recognize the Apocraphy as part of the cannon for the reasons I posted.

The Catholic Church recognizes them, and draw their doctrine of purgatory from them.

(y) (y) BIBLE



At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel





http://deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=100%25%20ILL&db=10/6/1973&s=M



http://www.deathclock.com/view_pdc.cfm?name=Qdrop&db=1/1/1973&s=M

[ASsman]

I do? Hmmm, I don't recall using the Bible as a source. Or giving my enterpretation of an ancient text, and supplementing my argument with "faith" hogwash. But in all sincerity, I don't have a problem with all you hard-core Jesus folk. As long as you don't fuck it up for the rest of us. Or try to prove your faith with anything but. Believe me, the way some girls are brought up, under the whip of Jesus, they become the biggest sluts. Ripe for the picking.

[Ace42]

All James is saying is your faith is evident by your works. If you claim to have faith in God, but there is no outward evidence of that faith then do you really have it?

That is like saying if you have faith that you could drive around the city at 90mph safely, but (for obvious reasons such as the law and consideration for other people) if you don't do it, you can't have faith.

And I assume you are referring to the Apocrypha. I posted this earlier and I don't know if you saw it so here it is again.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

I probably ignored it like I do most of your links. They are all of the most dubious providence. Like that apologetics website whose first principle is "the bible is the source of all truth".

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Except it *is* - *as an appendix*

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

That is incorrect. While most of the apocryphal books were not written in Hebrew, that is not to say that all are not. Furthermore, many Aramaic texts predate the period of the second temple (and the dialect was in constant use throughout biblical times).

Also, the KJA version (and most non-KJA inspired modern protestant translations that Fundamentalists and Evanjelicals subscribe to) was based heavily on *GREEK* not Hebrew translations for the new testament. The most modern ones use Greek *and* Latin extensively to help with transliteration.

2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

There is equal evidence to suggest this as there are for non-apocryphal books of the bible. In many books, the author is uncertain, and thus it cannot be discounted that they may have laid claim elsewhere in the accepted bible (or lost texts) ANYWAY.

3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Read "Jews" as "Pharisees" - the Saducees and other former Jewish priests were overthrown by them. Jesus doesn't accept the Pharisees as authoritative on Jewish teachings (nor the Saducees) and thus there is no reason for a modern Christian to assume that they are in any place to discount doctrine.

4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

What, pray tell, is "the real Christian Church" - and on whose authority do you discount Catholocism as "non-Christian." Catholocism *is* a Christian sect, there is no debate on the matter.

I'd wager that "the real Christian Church" happens to be divergent from the Orthodox or Ethiopean churches, which both predate protestantism by a massive margin, and are much better documented than the nebulous "pre-Romanic" churches of which there is very very limited evidence, certainly not enough to authoritatively support this claim.

Even arbitrarily discounting Catholocism based solely on your personal prejudice, that still leaves numerous books approved of by the Ethiopean and Orthodox churches, not to mention numerous lesser contemporary subsects.

Indeed, the "early church" cannot be said to have "kept the apocrypha seperate" from the deuterocanonical texts, as "the early church" was very loosely organised and had numerous divergent modes of thought, some of which incorporated Gnostic principles.

5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

Ahem, there are *4* books of the Maccabees. The fact that whoever wrote this considers there to be only 2 shows that he is treating Catholic translated apocrypha as "the be all and end all of apocrypha" - this is a mistake.

Furthermore, contradiction with the "canonical" scriptures only indicates an error, NOT necessarily an error with the apocrypha.

6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

In variance with *your preferred interpretation of the Bible* - that is hardly conclusive.

Infact, what this omits is point #7 - that numerous apochryphal texts have been discovered relatively recently, and as such are considered as "new revelation" (despite some of them being both physically and deducibly older than the source-texts for books that actually made the KJA edit)

Martin Luther considered the Epistle of James as apocryphal, because he highly doubted its Authorship by any of the several New Testament figures named James, and because it contained the line which seemed to contradict his teachings of salvation by faith alone: "Faith without works is dead".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

These are not *rational* justifications for denying the relevance of these books. Many Christians (Orthodox for example) would scoff at you calling core texts of theirs "non-cannonical" for example.

Other than that the first popular and officially endorsed bible in the English language was the protestant KJA version, what reason do you have for attributing divinity to that edition, but not the others?

The Jews hold the Old Testament Canon in High regard. It is there BIBLE, but they do not recognize the Apocraphy as part of the cannon for the reasons I posted.

There are plenty of New Testament apocrypha, and the Jews do NOT hold the accuracy of the old testament in High Regard - there are vast sections of the accepted Torah that do not appear in the old testament as found in the KJA and similar translations of the bible.

[Qdrop]

. Believe me, the way some girls are brought up, under the whip of Jesus, they become the biggest sluts. Ripe for the picking.

i can personally attest to this.

they fuck like champs, too.

[Qdrop]

I like when that one guy called you o-drop that one time. That was funny.

i cried for 2 days, aimee.

thanks for bringing *sniff* it up....*tear*

[100% ILL]

I probably ignored it like I do most of your links.

OK, I see now.