deluxe

Ok I see you have the beginnings , of understanding the big picture. The point of the bible is to get to know God, and we are made in his image. So we can get to him, very well. So that is not elusive. The justification of a God is supported by the science and observation. The scientists still have their heads in the sand, while the real world is going on around them.

Well when a baby is going to say the first word da da, it is just a mimic of you repeating it over and over. Then you run to your wife and say he is talking, he said da da. At that point it is just a mimic. But soon after he learns who da da is. But yes Parrots do mimic, but they can learn words, and talk. The thing we ask a person who has a Parrot is, does it talk? But this is really getting way from the snakes talking posts.

Parrots can talk. You can understand what they say. They may only say what they learn to say , but they still talk. Babies do the same thing. Gradually they learn to use speech, to express their ideas, but at first they just say what they have been taught to say.

We even have Parrots that talk. But that isn't what this was. It was Satan talking through the snake to Eve. The snake had nothing against Eve, it didn't know how to talk. Or did it have any thoughts on good and bad. Or what the test was with Adam and Eve. Revelation 12:9 Amplified Bible (AMP) 9And the huge dragon was cast down and out--that age-old serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, he who is the seducer (deceiver) of all humanity the world over; he was forced out and down to the earth, and his angels were flung out along with him. This scripture tell us that it was Satan who seduced Eve. It was Satan through the use of a serpent, that talked to Eve. Matthew 23:33-36 Common English Bible (CEB) 33 You snakes! You children of snakes! How will you be able to escape the judgment of hell? 34 Therefore, look, I’m sending you prophets, wise people, and legal experts. Some of them you will kill and crucify. And some you will beat in your synagogues and chase from city to city. 35 Therefore, upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been poured out on the earth, from the blood of that righteous man Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 36 I assure you that all these things will come upon this generation This talking about the Pharisees, saying they are children of Satan ( serpent). Now the Pharisees were not literal snakes. They are called that because, they followed the original serpent ( snake) Satan. And Satan is called the serpent ( snake) becasue he used the snake to deceive Eve. The snake didn't talk, it was Satan using the snake.

If man can do it why not Satan? I knew a man that could throw his voice, he drove a little dog nuts because it couldn't find where the barking was comming from. It really was unusual.

Actually man has a talking horse, Mister Ed. and other barn yard animals. You are talking a a creator that created the universe and all life. That also means all the laws of nature. So what you have to do is show, that the bible, is Gods word and can be relied on. Does it explain what we see, about man today and in the past?

In true Jewish tradition, as we have already seen, the Bible does not say anything to distinguish between genetic birth and adoption. In this case it is not even possible to tell from the context who is the genetic father of Zerubbabel and who is the adoptive father. This, of course, provides the answer to all the Jewish anti-missionary groups that try to ridicule Christians with the suggestion that if the New Testament can't even get the genealogy of Yeshua right, how can we believe anything else it says? They should be aware that the same apparent contradictions occur in the Tanakh, for the same reasons. Not only do we have two different fathers of Zerubbabel, but we have also seen how Michal, the daughter of Saul, was childless until the day of her death, yet she bore five sons to Adriel. http://www.annomundi...irgin_birth.htm iggy you will like this one because it uses the 1-2-3 scenario, you used in your post. If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are the same, Then the facts we have to keep in mind are: The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be a blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above. The verses above name Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the son of Neri The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel. We will have to assume the following, which are actually not entirely described in the Bible: (a) Salathiel was the biological son of Jechonias. This makes (2.) halfway true. (b) Salathiel died without child, but left behind a widow © Pedaiah was Salathiel's brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true. (d) Pedaiah can not be Salathiel's biological brother, since then he would be the biological son of Jechonias and therefore Zorobabel would become biological grandson of Jechonias and violate (1.) Therefore Pedaiah has to be only adopted son of Jechonias and only half brother of Salathiel. This makes (1.) true. (e) Jechonias has to have Neri's daughter as a wife, and this way we can call Salathiel as son of Neri, referring to his grandfather through his mother. This makes (2.) true. (f) Pedaiah has to be a son of Neri's daughter. This way he can be called as son of Jechonias when (e) happens and Pedaiah becomes Jechonias' adopted son as it is required by (d) The assumptions between (a) and (f) could be shown with the following family tree: If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are NOT the same, Then the facts we have to keep in mind are: The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above. This is automatically true. The verses above name one Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the other Salathiel a son of Neri This is automatically true. The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel. The only thing we have to assume is: (a) Salathiel (Jechonias' son) died without child, but left behind a widow (b) Pedaiah was Salathiel's biological brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true. This could be shown with the following family tree: Zorobabel and Salathiel Answer There are only two reasons to assume that the two persons listed in Matthew's genealogy are the same as in Luke's: They lived approximately during the same time Their names were rarely used As we compare the two possible answers above, we can conclude that we stay closer to the facts described in the Bible if we accept that the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew's genealogy are NOT the same as the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Luke's list. Missing names in Matthew's genealogy Matthew's list leaves out Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim from the generations of the kings. The reason for why their names were omitted is not known, but as we can see throughout the Bible, the terms "son", "father" and "begat" are not always used literally. Because of this, the list is still correct and does not contradict the Old Testament genealogies: 1Chr 3:11-16 http://www.complete-...gy_of_jesus.htm I did not make any of this up , it is common knowledge.

Actually this is not made up, it is a fact the the Jews looked at the records in different ways, because Jesus was coming so they were very careful in that. Also Son's were considered differntly in their day than we do today. There is the same sort of thing with the natives. When it comes to is entitled monies from the government, if a woman mairred a white man, and they lived off the reserve, their children were not considered native any more. So they were taken off the registry. None of this is made up, the bible is correct in what it said. People just have to understand at what point of view it was looked at. I have given you plenty of evidence. It is known that the Jews did it this way. People definitely can not say the bible was wrong, or inaccurate., or contradicted itself. The bible also correct when it says endless genealogies, which foster and promote useless speculations and questionings. God knew the ones that will support him will have all these kind of useless speculations and questionings, . The people at that time knew all about these genealogies . It is only centuries, later when people did not understand or take into account how and why the Jews did their records the way they did. So if some want to look at this useless speculations and questionings as a small fulfillment of prophecy, they can. But no one can claim this is a contradiction. But if some don't want to accept it then that is up to them. They just fulfill prophecy.

I have given 2 examples so far. This is interesting. 1 Timothy 1:4 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) 4neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which promote questions rather than godly edifying in the faith, so do! 1 Timothy 1:4 Amplified Bible (AMP) 4Nor to give importance to or occupy themselves with legends (fables, myths) and endless genealogies, which foster and promote useless speculations and questionings rather than acceptance in faith of God's administration and the divine training that is in faith ([a]in that leaning of the entire human personality on God in absolute trust and confidence)-- Footnotes: 1 Timothy 1:4 Alexander Souter, Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.The Jew had blood lines, they also had legal lines, and sometimes they left out a number of generations there lists, because of important occurrences. It is interesting, that God knew that , for some people, it was not the truths they were interested in, but, were interseted in useless speculations and questionings. Besides the researcher's into this have given reasonable, evdience as to what happened back then. Do you remember when I said the bible interprets itself.

We were talking about genealogy. If you look at the way the Jews kept there records, they are accurate. But their concern was for Jesus to come in the correct line. But things can happen, where maybe you do not have sons, or you may have only daughters. In that time they used the word 'son' a lot different than we do today. At least in North America. It's really a matter of which way the writer, used the lists. They are accurate, for their way of looking at it. So there is no contradiction in this at all. Actually I should have said there that it was a strong possibility, that Shealtiel was given Neri's daughter. SALATHIEL (.7.aXaBti7X, answering to the Heb. asked of God), the father of . Zerubbabel (Matt. i. 12 ; Luke iii. 27 ; comp. Ezra iii. 2 ; Neh. xii. ; Hag. i. 14 • 11. 2). In the genealogy of our Lord given by Matthew he appears as the son of Jeconiah ; in that given by Luke lie is the son of Neri. With Matthew ac cords Chron. 17. It thus appears that in some sense Salathiel was reckoned the son both of Jeconiah and of Neri. There are two ways of ac counting for this : either he was really the son of Jeconiah, and was counted for a son to Neri from having married his daughter ; or he was really the son of Neri, and was counted the son of Jeconiah from having succeeded to him on the failure of the line of descent from Solomon through him. The former is the more probable hypothesis ; the state ment of both the Chronicler and St. Matthew lead ing to the conclusion that Jeconiah was the real father of Salathiel, and there being no evidence of any failure of the line of descent in Jeconiah's family through his having no sons, seeing he had not fewer than seven besides Salathiel. It has Indeed been said that the 'supposition that the son and heir of David and Solomon would be called the son of Neri, an obscure individual, because he had married Neri's daughter, is too absurd to need refutation' (Smith's Dia of the Bible, art. 'Neri'). But this is said without reason. For—r. Though Neri malbe an obscure individual' to us, it by no means follows that he was so to his contempo raries ; 2. He is not more obscure than Salathiel ; we know as much of the one as of the other ; 3. He was as much a descendant of David as was Jeconiah, so that his daughter would be a fitting match for Jeconiah's son ; 4. Supposing Salathiel the son of Jeconiah married Nen s daughter he could not help being his legal son, and, if Ned 'had no other son, he would of course be reckoned in the genealogies as the son of Neri, however obscure the latter might have been. From all which it appears that the absurdity' exists only in the fancy of the critic, and does not attach to the sup position he criticises.—W. L. A. . http://www.magnumarc.../Salathiel.html The point of all this is that the bible is not in contradiction. The scriptures are correct. You do have to do some research to find out how the Jews did their lineages. So what the bible says is absolutely correct.

No need to apologize, this can be very confusing, most because how the lines of decent were done back then. It can be read many different ways. And how women were considered at that time, when it came to the line of decent. I could find no other reference in the bible on this. Prof. M.M.Ninan THE PROBLEM OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS 3.4.1 Jeconiah, Neri and Shaelthiel However the problem is solved with the assumption of levirate custom. Jeconiah was carried away as a prisoner and his queen was also taken as captive. But it is unlikely that she was put in prison with the King. Women were never considered important enough to be put in prison and that would have been considered improper Babylonian culture. It is therefore normal to expect her to follow the levirate custom as the King was in the babylonian prison and unable to procreate and keep his name in the tribe. There was no knowing whether he would ever come out of the prison alive. But he did after 37 years. I would plaace him at 55 years old when he was released. So it is quite reasonable to assume that Neri took the Queen and begat children for Jeconiah. Neri was of the same tribe and family of David and therefore the Kinsman of Jeconiah http://www.scribd.com/doc/409755/Genealogy-of-Jesus So there is no contradiction, it is just a study of the genealogy of that time.

iggy wrote The father of Mary and maternal grandfather of Jesus Christ. (Lu 3:23) Joseph's being called the "son of Heli" is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke did this before with ( Luke 3:27) refering to Jeconiah's son Shealtiel as the son of Neri? Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel. However, Neri gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife. Luke referred to Neri's son-in-law as Neri's son just as he did in the case of Joseph, calling him the son of Mary's father, Heli.—Luke 3:23. Luke 3:23 Contemporary English Version (CEV) The Ancestors of Jesus (Matthew 1.1-17) 23When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 3:23 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) The Genealogy of Jesus Christ 23 As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be [a] the son of Joseph, [son] [b] of Heli, Footnotes: Luke 3:23 People did not know about His virgin birth; [Lk 1:26-38]; [Mt 1:18-25] Luke 3:23 The relationship in some cases may be more distant than a son. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 3:23 New Century Version (NCV) The Family History of Jesus 23 When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph's son. Joseph was the son[a] of Heli. Footnotes: Luke 3:23 son "Son" in Jewish lists of ancestors can sometimes mean grandson or more distant relative. So if you check out the foot notes , this is consistent, with the way Luke comments on this. Luke did this same thing with Jeconiah's son Shealtiel.( son in law)

Though what I said is accurate. That is how it works. Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. I don't need to try again. What I said for both of these answers stands.

The bible is really one book. Some religions have called it OT and NT, but that is not correct. The writings before Jesus were all leading up until he came. They also talks about and gave example of the second coming of Jesus. It really is one book all in harmony with itself. The reason people in are not with the 'program' is that this world is controlled by Satan. Satan's only purpose is to mislead people away from God. He is very successful at that. The scientists are just one of many distractions. There will be no mass conversion. The bible says very few will find the right way to go. Hi Iggy Sorry I missed this the first time What was the name of Jesus' paternal grandfather? The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli."—Lu 3:23. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke's genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit— 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ["The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"]' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)."—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129. I hope this helps.

Iggy, you don't have the complete understanding of that verse. ( so I don't need to retract it ) Here is is an example where men in the bible explained occurrences in the case of Egypt's magic-practicing priests and wise men were helpless when it came to interpreting Pharaoh's God-sent dreams. "There was no interpreter of them for Pharaoh." (Ge 41:1-8) It was then brought to Pharaoh's attention that Joseph had successfully interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh's chief cupbearer and chief baker. (Ge 40:5-22; 41:9-13) However, in that connection Joseph had taken no credit to himself but had called their attention to God as the Interpreter of dreams, saying, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Ge 40:8) So when called before Pharaoh to interpret the king's dream, Joseph declared: "I need not be considered! God will announce welfare to Pharaoh." (Ge 41:14-16) After hearing the interpretation, even Pharaoh acknowledged Joseph to be "one in whom the spirit of God" was found, for "God has caused you [Joseph] to know all this."—Ge 41:38, 39. So in this case God did the interpretation for man. So this supports 2 Peter. So this shows God gave the dream but it wasn't man who interpreted it , it was God. So this is telling us that God gave us his word but he also interprets it to us. So both of these accounts are in harmony. we get more information for the other scriptures. Now what about today? Does God interpret the scriptures for us today. I said the bible interprets itself. And that is true. And here is how. In Daniel Daniel 12:4-5 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) 4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Here in Daniel God tells us , that the knowledge will be increased. What this is saying is that , at a certain time in the future the knowledge of the bible will be understood. There are no new writings it is still the bible. But the understanding of the bible will be increased. at that time ( time of the end) Now the bible has been the same for centuries, so what makes the difference? God opens up this knowledge. He does the interpretation. So the bible interprets itself. This information has always been in the bible, but God lets us see his interpretation for us. Now the little example we have just done here, shows that if you read and consider all the bible ,different scriptures will add the information until you get Gods interpretation. The bible interprets itself. This also supports 2 Peter. So God had the bible written so that he could give his interpretation to his followers when needed. Yet the bible is the same, as the early days of Christianity.

iggy I'm Ok one on one, I freeze at public speaking. I don't do very many of these forums now. I check once and a while to see if the science minded people have learned anything yet. I wonder why a Science forum, has sections on religion? Are they open to the religious minded people to give , their take on science and creation? As an equal voice, with as much support as the scientists say they have with the evidence found. Or is it designed to scoff at religion and their silly ideas , with audacity, of someone that thinks they are standing, with superior learning and intellect, while they play with the bug. But it seems when the tables are turned there is a confusion of not knowing how to handle it. But when that is passed, look at the evidence. What does it really say! Maybe one might take a quick look. Even though he maybe ashamed at doing so. There is more to gain than one can imagine. About interpretation. The interpretation is God's. 2 Peter 1:20-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. I do not promote any particular religion on these forums. I do promote the bible, and the science. As for the contradictions, I said I have answered many of them, but I gave just 2 as examples here. I just took the first 2 that were on my list. Don't feel bad about preaching science to me, if you believe that your interpretation of the science found is correct then tell me. But I will demand that the evidence be there also., not just the interpretation. After all I have been shown the science from the scientists.

I talk to allot of people about the bible and science . I am not very good at public speaking. I am better at this, because I give myself time to research or think about what I say. The bible is in harmony with itself. That is the incredible thing about this. Written over 1500 years by 39 different writers, and yet the bible is in harmony with itself, man is not able to do this. ( this is not just made up stuff) The genius of the bible is that it interprets itself, that is why the bible says there is one interpretation and it is from God. He interpreted it for us. But to get the people of science to trust the bible you have to prove that scientifically it is accurate. I don't know of any contradictions in the bible. i have answered many of the so called 'contradictions' found on the internet, and have been able to answer all that I have been asked . So far I don't know of any. One other thing. If a scientists talks about the science , is that preaching?

Yes these are small trivialities. But in a way very telling. The scientific community, looks for even the smallest irregularity, to discredit God, and his word. After all they think the bible should be perfect. They then think that anyone that believes in the bible should be perfect also. ( should know everything) Of course they don't put that burden on themselves. If they used the 'scientific method" of proving first then say what that proof is, they should have the same burden. So what they have really done is to expect God and the followers of God to have a much higher standard than themselves. That is interesting!! The other thing is when I have to do research about some of these small trivialities, and when I find answers, it amazes me how detailed and accurate the information is, that God gave us. That instills incredible confidence in his word and in a God. To the the point that this is an absolute truth. This is not emotion this is based on many many little and large facts. ( evidence). I don't pretend to be smarter than the scientists, I don't need to be. I just go to where the the best answers are found. 1 Corinthians 3:18-20 New International Version (NIV) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20 and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."[b] This is so true. Though I do understand that scientific minded people need scientific answers. I did too.

Here are 2 'contradictions that I have answered before. This one is about Judus. Question: Acts 1:18 This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out. Here is my answer!! According to Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. But Acts 1:18 says, "pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out." Matthew deals with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts describes the result. Combining the two accounts, it shows that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or tree limb broke so that he plunged down and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such an event conceivable. Also the idea that you just fall in a field, and noisily burst, open his intestines, is unlikely ,it was more likely, a fall of some distance. Here is another 'contradiction I was asked!! Question: What about Judas, brother of James? Is he normally counted among the Apostles? If so, why don't Matthew and Mark mention him? And why don't Luke and John mention Thaddaeus? I mean sure, the four Gospels are supposed to have been written by different people, and different people have different recollections, but this is supposed to be a divinely inspired book! Answer.... One of the 12 apostles, also called Thaddaeus and "Judas the son of James." In the listings of the apostles in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18, James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus are linked together. In the listings at Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 Thaddaeus is not included; instead we find "Judas the son of James," leading to the conclusion that Thaddaeus is another name for the apostle Judas. The possibility of confusing two apostles named Judas might be a reason why the name Thaddaeus is sometimes used. Some translators render Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, "Judas the brother of James," since the Greek does not give the exact relationship. But the Syriac does supply the word "son." Consequently, numerous modern translations read "Judas the son of James." (RS, AT, NW, La) The only Biblical reference to Judas alone is at John 14:22. This verse refers to him as "Judas, not Iscariot," thus providing a means of distinguishing which Judas spoke. There are many so called 'contradiction's ' floating around the internet. These are from people who do not really know what the bible says. So beware where you are getting them from. The more an more I have looked these up and found answers the more I have justification for believing in a God and the bible. Scientists could never stand up to anything like this, when questioned on their interpretations.

As for the bible , it has one theme the first prophecy is revealed and answered in Revelation the last book. I was written over a 1500 year time span by 39 different writers and is in harmony with itself. The numerous prophecies all come true ( now with just s a very few remaining. ) Archeology, the science on creation, and historians , all confirms, the bible is accurate and correct. The scientists have for the last 150 years or so, tried to say creation is not needed for the the life and universe we see, but in effect, because they can't not show they are right, have really supported creation and a God. Man needs a God , people for generations have worshiped Gods. If they don't know who he is, they make up some for themselves. Even 'evolution' is only an idea that no one has seen or can show actually happens. Also humans have talents that have nothing to do with 'evolution'. If you are a human you will always only have human children. There are no almost humans, or humans that are no longer human. Science and the bible are in harmony with each other. Science and creation are the same thing., you can't separate them. The bible claims to be from God, and is inspired of God. Now that is not a proof in itself, but If a writing is from God it should at least claim it is. So how can there be any question?

There was an estimated 1 milion people on the earth at the time of the flood, 8 people survived. What is the percentage of that? It is not about being sold on something it's about want to serve God the way he wants. Not many really will do that. Matthew 7:13-14 New International Version (NIV) The Narrow and Wide Gates 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Some do not know the bible at all. If they did they would know this.

Actually in man he did not create imperfection. Because your perfect doesn't mean have to go a certain direction. It doesn't mean you know everything. you are perfect for what you were created for. Adam had free will. He was not lacking anything. The same with Satan. Satan made himself the Satan (which means resistor. He lacked nothing. Many people think that been perfect means you are all robots doing the same thing. That is not correct. We all have different personalities. That is why loyalty was the sin, then disobedience. Adam knew God created him and then created Eve. He had many dealing with God for a long time, before Eve came. He also know what death was. He saw the animals die. God told him that the tree meant death for him if he ate from it. Adam went against God . If you are a scientists and you and a partner are working on some experiments, and you are the boss or lead scientists. You work with your partner for years. But one day on a whim, your partner just decides to go somewhere else, and use what you have taught him over the years. Would you not be hurt from the the disloyalty? You also know that your partner, would get in trouble because he does know everything. But you let him learn his own lesson, he is not forced to stay with you. This is what condition we are in now. But God said he would step in before man ruined the earth.

Poor old Isaac Newton, some laugh at him : (Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Excavations in and around the ancient city of Babylon have revealed the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki inside Babylon's walls. Records and inscriptions found concerning such temples often contain the words, "Its top shall reach the heavens," and King Nebuchadnezzar is recorded as saying: "I raised the summit of the Tower of stages at Etemenanki so that its top rivalled the heavens." One fragment found N of the temple of Marduk in Babylon related the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded." (Bible and Spade, by S. L. Caiger, 1938, p. 29) The ziggurat located at Uruk (Biblical Erech) was found to be built with clay, bricks, and asphalt.—Compare Ge 11:1-9. Here is what Genesis 11:19 says about this. Genesis 11:1-9 New International Version (NIV) Genesis 11 The Tower of Babel 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth." 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth This say's exatly what the clay tablets found, said.

The bible calls these one the man of lawlessness. This term comes from the Pharisees. They were to despence the Law, to the people. But they made up theri own rules (laws). That is the same today in Chrsitendom, they are to despence the teachings of Jesus, but make up theri own ideas. That is why the bible calls then the man of lawlessness. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5 New International Version (NIV) 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?

There are many scientific proofs that the bible is reliable, and should be trusted. And that it is actually the word of God to man. Knowing for example that Satan is the ruler of the world, that means he is in control of governments and religions. That is going to be difficult to find the answers. And of cousre , the attitude of the searcher. Some do not want a God casued , answer. ( they then are not accountable,then can live the way they want)