Evolution VS Creation

The Bible was not written by god, it was written by men, the same as the Qu'ran. All three of the judeo-christian religions believe in the same god. Same dude different name.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, that wasn't John's aim. His gospel was written at least 30 years after the others, it was unnecessary to point out what various others had said, and it was obvious that what was important to him (especially how different the gospel of John is written in comparison to the other gospels) was that the deed was done, the deal is finished, that sin is conquered.

The gospels all complete a final picture.

It was unnecessary to write the Lord of the Earth's final words, but dammit, it was important to copy/paste other trivial things from the other gospels.

But they were under the direction of someone who had directly been involved with Jesus throughout their Christian life.

Luke? Who?

I still don't understand where you believe the prophesy has a "date" written by it?

"The Medes were an ancient Iranian people[1][2][3][4][5][6] who lived in the northwestern portions of present-day Iran, roughly the areas of present day Kurdistan, Hamedan, Tehran, Lorestan, Azerbaijan, Esfahan and Zanjan. This area was known in Greek as Media or Medea (Μηδία, Old Persian Māda;[7][8] adjective Median, antiquated also Medean). Under Assyrian rule, the Medes were known as Mādāyu.[9] They entered this region with the first wave of Iranian tribes, in the late second millennium BC (the Bronze Age collapse).[10]"

You know what's rich? In regards to this prophecy, the other guy claims it's glaringly obvious that it happened in the past because of the semantics used, and you claim it's glaringly obvious it will happen in the future because of the semantics used.

Conclusion: you can make a prophecy mean whatever the hell you want depending on what you need.

The oldest translation says three.
The modern translations says seven.
That means sometime between the Septuagint and the modern translations, an error was made. Just like many other modern modern-translation hiccups, like the word Hell.
The original scripture does not have that error.

My hebrew word trumps your greek ones, because the progression goes Hebrew > Greek > Latin


Hebrew: Modern
ויבא גד אל דוד ויגד לו ויאמר לו התבוא לך שבע שנים רעב בארצך אם שלשה חדשים נסך לפני צריך והוא רדפך ואם היות שלשת ימים דבר בארצך עתה דע וראה מה אשיב שלחי דבר׃

Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants Only)
ויבא־גד אל־דוד ויגד־לו ויאמר לו התבוא לך שבע שנים רעב בארצך אם־שלשה חדשים נסך לפני־צריך והוא רדפך ואם־היות שלשת ימים דבר בארצך עתה דע וראה מה־אשיב שלחי דבר׃ ס

Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants and Vowels)
וַיָּבֹא־גָד אֶל־דָּוִד וַיַּגֶּד־לֹו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו הֲתָבֹוא לְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים רָעָב בְּאַרְצֶךָ אִם־שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נֻסְךָ לִפְנֵי־צָרֶיךָ וְהוּא רֹדְפֶךָ וְאִם־הֱיֹות שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים דֶּבֶר בְּאַרְצֶךָ עַתָּה דַּע וּרְאֵה מָה־אָשִׁיב שֹׁלְחִי דָּבָר׃ ס

Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וַיָּבֹא־גָ֥ד אֶל־דָּוִ֖ד וַיַּגֶּד־לֹ֑ו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לֹ֡ו הֲתָבֹ֣וא לְךָ֣ שֶֽׁבַע שָׁנִ֣ים ׀ רָעָ֣ב ׀ בְּאַרְצֶ֡ךָ אִם־שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה חֳ֠דָשִׁים נֻסְךָ֙ לִפְנֵֽי־צָרֶ֜יךָ וְה֣וּא רֹדְפֶ֗ךָ וְאִם־הֱ֠יֹות שְׁלֹ֨שֶׁת יָמִ֥ים דֶּ֙בֶר֙ בְּאַרְצֶ֔ךָ עַתָּה֙ דַּ֣ע וּרְאֵ֔ה מָה־אָשִׁ֥יב שֹׁלְחִ֖י דָּבָֽר׃ ס

Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ויבא־גד אל־דוד ויגד־לו ויאמר לו התבוא לך שבע שנים ׀ רעב ׀ בארצך אם־שלשה חדשים נסך לפני־צריך והוא רדפך ואם־היות שלשת ימים דבר בארצך עתה דע וראה מה־אשיב שלחי דבר׃ ס

Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants and Vowels)
וַיָּבֹא־גָד אֶל־דָּוִד וַיַּגֶּד־לֹו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו הֲתָבֹוא לְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים ׀ רָעָב ׀ בְּאַרְצֶךָ אִם־שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נֻסְךָ לִפְנֵי־צָרֶיךָ וְהוּא רֹדְפֶךָ וְאִם־הֱיֹות שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים דֶּבֶר בְּאַרְצֶךָ עַתָּה דַּע וּרְאֵה מָה־אָשִׁיב שֹׁלְחִי דָּבָר׃ ס

Hebrew OT: Aleppo Codex
יג ויבא גד אל דוד ויגד לו ויאמר לו התבוא לך שבע שנים רעב בארצך אם שלשה חדשים נסך לפני צריך והוא רדפך ואם היות שלשת ימים דבר בארצך--עתה דע וראה מה אשיב שלחי דבר {ס}


שבע
שבע
שבע
שבע
שבע

11th word from right to left on the first hebrew verse. Difficult to bold it, so copy it and ctrl+f it.

MEANS SEVEN. Google a hebrew dictionary.

http://www.milon.co.il/general/gener...%A2&tl=English


7651. sheba' (sheh'-bah)

7652 >>
Or (masculine) shibrah {shib-aw'}; from shaba'; a primitive cardinal number; seven (as the sacred full one); also (adverbially) seven times; by implication, a week; by extension, an indefinite number -- (+ by) seven(-fold),-s, (-teen, -teenth), -th, times). Compare shib'anah.

My older verse one-ups your Greek translation.

[Dogenzaka]

My hebrew word trumps your greek ones, because the progression goes Hebrew > Greek > Latin

Sorry, no. The Septuagint was translated directly from the originalHebrew manuscripts at the time, around 250 BC.

"Hebrew Modern" does not trump Hebrew/Greek from 250 BC. Sorry.

Luke? Who?

Luke, the writer of the third gospel, stated the purpose of his account in the preface:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed (Luke 1:1-4).

This statement of Luke tells us, at least, the following:

1.
Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the events he recorded.
2.
But he, like those before him, made careful use of the eyewitness accounts.
3.
Luke had access to other narratives, possibly written documents like his own.
4.
Luke felt the need for a further account.
5.
His account is orderly.
6.
He had full knowledge of the events he recorded.
7.
His ultimate aim is truth.


Once again, regardless, his account fits well with the others, who were with direct followers and/or Jesus Christ.

It was unnecessary to write the Lord of the Earth's final words, but dammit, it was important to copy/paste other trivial things from the other gospels.

As I said before, the different gospels say different things at different times, and the same thing at different times. Two people who witness the same event will not give an account of the event in the exact same way, with the exact same points, with the exact same words, but they can both still be 100% correct about the event.

"The Medes were an ancient Iranian people[1][2][3][4][5][6] who lived in the northwestern portions of present-day Iran, roughly the areas of present day Kurdistan, Hamedan, Tehran, Lorestan, Azerbaijan, Esfahan and Zanjan. This area was known in Greek as Media or Medea (Μηδία, Old Persian Māda;[7][8] adjective Median, antiquated also Medean). Under Assyrian rule, the Medes were known as Mādāyu.[9] They entered this region with the first wave of Iranian tribes, in the late second millennium BC (the Bronze Age collapse).[10]"

You know what's rich? In regards to this prophecy, the other guy claims it's glaringly obvious that it happened in the past because of the semantics used, and you claim it's glaringly obvious it will happen in the future because of the semantics used.

Conclusion: you can make a prophecy mean whatever the hell you want depending on what you need.

What other guy?
You mean because it uses the word "Medes"? OH HAR.
Medes was just the term used to describe the people at that time. Obviously, they wouldn't know the name of the people in the future. Just like Persia later became Iran, an ancient text isn't going to say "Iranians" but it's still the same people, if not their descendants. Are you saying that because an ancient document says "Medes" which was the name of the people at the time, that their future selves, because they are under a different name, are incapable of being valid in the prophesy? Are you saying because it says "Medes" that in 2021 this prophesy can't come true with future-day Iranians? THAT is rich.

- You think that a list of Hebrew translations that comes after a Greek and Hebrew translation of 250 BC is more legit.
- (If I'm correct) You assume that because they were called "Medes" a long time ago, that a prophesy cannot take place after a period where they are no longer called "Medes".
- You seem to assume that because someone was not there at the time, they cannot write about an event truthfully. I was not at the Holocaust, so it looks like I don't have the right to write my school paper >:

That is rich.

The Bible was not written by god, it was written by men, the same as the Qu'ran.

Of course it was written by man. A holy hand did not stretch out of the heavens with a quill and write in an empty book. No one denies that. Christians just believe that the humans who wrote it were inspired and directed by God to write it.

All three of the judeo-christian religions believe in the same god. Same dude different name.

False. Why don't you study the God of the Qu'ran and the Bible and then make a comparison? They are completely different ideas of God in personality, morality, and doctrine, and each belief believes the others' view of God is heresy.

[Phoenix]

Sorry, no. The Septuagint was translated directly from the originalHebrew manuscripts at the time, around 250 BC.

"Hebrew Modern" does not trump Hebrew/Greek from 250 BC. Sorry.

Two things are hilarious:

1. Apparently, Hebrews don't know how to translate Hebrew, but Greeks do. In fact, one Greek translation trumps every other, including the Hebrew ones!
2. Hebrew Modern is one of like the 5 I posted.

Luke, the writer of the third gospel, stated the purpose of his account in the preface:

The "who" referred to your claim that Luke was under the direction of someone who personally dealt with Jesus. I asked who that someone was.

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed (Luke 1:1-4).

This statement of Luke tells us, at least, the following:

1.
Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the events he recorded.
2.
But he, like those before him, made careful use of the eyewitness accounts.

Yes, because everybody knows eyewitnesses never exaggerate.

3.
Luke had access to other narratives, possibly written documents like his own.
4.
Luke felt the need for a further account.
5.
His account is orderly.

So Luke copy/pastah.

6.
He had full knowledge of the events he recorded.
7.
His ultimate aim is truth.

He had full knowledge of the events he recorded? How do you know this?

Once again, regardless, his account fits well with the others, who were with direct followers and/or Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all gospels anonymous? So you should have no idea if they were direct followers of Christ?

As I said before, the different gospels say different things at different times, and the same thing at different times. Two people who witness the same event will not give an account of the event in the exact same way, with the exact same points, with the exact same words, but they can both still be 100% correct about the event

The only way people write differing epitaphs is when they're not paying attention or they're making it up.

What other guy?
You mean because it uses the word "Medes"? OH HAR.

Forgive me for understanding "Medes" as "Medes".

Medes was just the term used to describe the people at that time. Obviously, they wouldn't know the name of the people in the future. Just like Persia later became Iran, an ancient text isn't going to say "Iranians" but it's still the same people, if not their descendants. Are you saying that because an ancient document says "Medes" which was the name of the people at the time, that their future selves, because they are under a different name, are incapable of being valid in the prophesy? Are you saying because it says "Medes" that in 2021 this prophesy can't come true with future-day Iranians? THAT is rich.

They wouldn't have needed to know the name, as God is speaking is first person.

This is what I found rich, which you couldn't understand:

1. Poster before you pointed out that Babylon was destroyed, and the part that says it will never be inhabited again speaks metaphorically about the Kingdom of Babylon, not the city itself. That's how he rationalized his belief, and he was convinced he was right.

2. You believe that Babylon and the Medes are apparently metaphorical representations of future events. This is how you rationalize your belief and you are convinced that you are right.

What is rich is how anyone and everyone can interpret a prophecy to their liking when it's vague enough (even when it's not meant to be vague) and bet their soul on that belief. It's rich because that's how the whole religion works.

- You think that a list of Hebrew translations that comes after a Greek and Hebrew translation of 250 BC is more legit.

If you knew the first thing about Judaism and the OT, you'd know that the Aleppo and Leningrad Codexes are considered the ultimate authority, by biblical scholars and Jews alike, in the Hebrew Bible. To deny these over a "seven" is beyond foolishness.

- (If I'm correct) You assume that because they were called "Medes" a long time ago, that a prophesy cannot take place after a period where they are no longer called "Medes".

I assume that because they are called Medes in a time where there are Medes, and then those Medes do what the prophecy said, it was referring to the Medes. Apparently not, that the invasion of Persia into Babylon was a coincidence.

- You seem to assume that because someone was not there at the time, they cannot write about an event truthfully. I was not at the Holocaust, so it looks like I don't have the right to write my school paper >:

Not without sources, or you get an F. Does Luke get an F? Or does your school accept history papers where you can make shit up as you go along without checking if it's true?

[Dogenzaka]

Yes, because everybody knows eyewitnesses never exaggerate.

Only fools exaggerate about something that could possibly be the most important thing that ever happened in the history of humanity. Assuming that Luke exaggerated because he's telling an event that has never happened before, is foolish.

Two things are hilarious:

1. Apparently, Hebrews don't know how to translate Hebrew, but Greeks do. In fact, one Greek translation trumps every other, including the Hebrew ones!
2. Hebrew Modern is one of like the 5 I posted.

1. Actually the ones who translated the Septuagint I believe spoke Greek and Hebrew. And yes, it does, because it's the oldest and translated from the original manuscripts. Sorry, Pho!
2. It's the one you pointed out, however. And neither of them are as old as the Septuagint Hebrew.

He had full knowledge of the events he recorded? How do you know this?

Oh! You're right, because he wrote down things he didn't know! He just wrote down a bunch of babble like the other Apostles who laid down their lives for a lie they made up for shits and giggles. Right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all gospels anonymous? So you should have no idea if they were direct followers of Christ?

No? I don't believe so?

The only way people write differing epitaphs is when they're not paying attention or they're making it up.

Um, no. My school paper on the Holocaust is probably different than someone else's. Doesn't mean we're lying about the Holocaust.

1. Poster before you pointed out that Babylon was destroyed, and the part that says it will never be inhabited again speaks metaphorically about the Kingdom of Babylon, not the city itself. That's how he rationalized his belief, and he was convinced he was right.

The Persians destroyed Babylon? Really?

2. You believe that Babylon and the Medes are apparently metaphorical representations of future events. This is how you rationalize your belief and you are convinced that you are right.

No, I'm saying Medes is just a name. Persians, Iranians, Medes, whatever. They were called different things at different times. At that time they were called Medes, so you apparently, I think, believe that because they're not called Medes anymore, the prophesy had to have happened when they were called Medes. Which is ridiculous.

What is rich is how anyone and everyone can interpret a prophecy to their liking when it's vague enough (even when it's not meant to be vague) and bet their soul on that belief. It's rich because that's how the whole religion works.

Once again, prove to me that the prophesy had to have happened 2,000 years ago. Nothing states that the event had a time limit. It just said that it will happen. The whole beginning of your argument was that the prophesy was false, not even thinking about the possibility that it hasn't happened yet.

And I don't believe in religion.

If you knew the first thing about Judaism and the OT, you'd know that the Aleppo and Leningrad Codexes are considered the ultimate authority, by biblical scholars and Jews alike, in the Hebrew Bible. To deny these over a "seven" is beyond foolishness.

Leningrad Codex - 1008 AD
Aleppo - 10th Century AD
ORIGINAL Hebrew manuscripts used to create the Septuagint - 250 BC

To deny the translation that came first over translations that came 1,200 years later is beyond foolishness.

I assume that because they are called Medes in a time where there are Medes, and then those Medes do what the prophecy said, it was referring to the Medes. Apparently not, that the invasion of Persia into Babylon was a coincidence.

I'm confused as to your point. The Medes didn't exist at the time the prophesy that Medes would destroy Babylon was made, is what you're saying?

Not without sources, or you get an F. Does Luke get an F? Or does your school accept history papers where you can make shit up as you go along without checking if it's true?

I'd compare Luke's paper with others, like Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul's testimonies to check if his paper matches with what various others have said about the topic. Look's like Luke's lucky that his testimony is the same as the others'.

I'm inspired by Bowling for Soup, does that make Jaret Red**** a God?

EDIT: holy ****, I can't even spell the guys name. Way to go.

[Sir Meta Knight]

This whole argument is solved by thinking about it, and then realizing that a made-up belief, that cannot be observed at all, cannot go up against science, which limits itself to a standard of rules and proof.

And evolution has been really proven already.

And why, again, are we discussing biblical scripture here? Just wondering.

[Phoenix]

Only fools exaggerate about something that could possibly be the most important thing that ever happened in the history of humanity. Assuming that Luke exaggerated because he's telling an event that has never happened before, is foolish.

Where have I said Luke exaggerated? I'm talking about the eyewitnesses. You realize eyewitnesses exaggerate especially when it's important? Look at Alexander the Great, or King Arthur.

1. Actually the ones who translated the Septuagint I believe spoke Greek and Hebrew. And yes, it does, because it's the oldest and translated from the original manuscripts. Sorry, Pho!
2. It's the one you pointed out, however. And neither of them are as old as the Septuagint Hebrew.

Apparently, you judge authenticity based on the age of a compilation.

Oh! You're right, because he wrote down things he didn't know! He just wrote down a bunch of babble like the other Apostles who laid down their lives for a lie they made up for shits and giggles. Right.

Why is always extremes with you? Either he had full knowledge, or he didn't know anything! Dur, how about knowing most or part of the story? Oh right, I forgot, all accounts must be perfect because you said so.

No? I don't believe so?

So I'm confused as to why so much about them, since you don't even know who they are.

Um, no. My school paper on the Holocaust is probably different than someone else's. Doesn't mean we're lying about the Holocaust.

That's unless they tell you to quote Hitler. Or if you reach the part where he dies, and everyone in your class writes differing last words.

The Persians destroyed Babylon? Really?

They conquered it. The people in the prophecy from the nation in the prophecy conquered the other nation that appears in the prophecy.... but the prophecy wasn't about that event, so it was all just a big lol.

No, I'm saying Medes is just a name. Persians, Iranians, Medes, whatever. They were called different things at different times. At that time they were called Medes, so you apparently, I think, believe that because they're not called Medes anymore, the prophesy had to have happened when they were called Medes. Which is ridiculous.

That's your interpretation and rationalization. The poster before you had another one. Both of you are convinced you are right. Ah well, the fate of the prophecy is to be interpreted in any way it fits.

Once again, prove to me that the prophesy had to have happened 2,000 years ago. Nothing states that the event had a time limit. It just said that it will happen. The whole beginning of your argument was that the prophesy was false, not even thinking about the possibility that it hasn't happened yet.

Because, you know, biblical scholars understand the prophecy for what it is? I honestly had no idea someone could twist the prophecy in such ways, but there you go.

And I don't believe in religion.

You know what's funny? Back in time, "religion" was linked to a positive thing, it carried good connotations. Today, religious people seek top distance themselves from the term. What happened, you think?

Leningrad Codex - 1008 AD
Aleppo - 10th Century AD
ORIGINAL Hebrew manuscripts used to create the Septuagint - 250 BC

To deny the translation that came first over translations that came 1,200 years later is beyond foolishness.

Again, don't let every single biblical scholar in existence deter your belief! So what if the codices are considered the ultimate authority? So what if the Aleppo Codex independently reached "seven" without consulting the Septuagint? So what if it has been proven to be the most faithful to the original Hebrew Text? So what is every single text in existence (a lot done without consulting the Septuagint) reached the number seven independently? So what if you have to contradict every expert to hold steadfast to this? You are convinced that the Greek version is the ultimate authority on the basis that it was translated before (apparently, the oldest version is exempt of any and all translation mistakes). You are convinced that a single Greek translating entire books in a cave trumps Hebrews keeping their own books alive.

The Septuagint, the compilation of these books, may be older than the Codices, but apparently, you think the Codices were created out of thin air by Jews. They had other books. The COMPILATION is older, but that's as retarded as saying the Septuagint > Dead Sea Scrolls because the Dead Sea Scrolls compilation (the one being produced now) is younger.

But I forgot the logic. Christians always know more about the OT than Hebrews, amirite?

I'm confused as to your point. The Medes didn't exist at the time the prophesy that Medes would destroy Babylon was made, is what you're saying?

No, I'm saying that it's an awfully big coincidence that a prophecy about the Medes invading Babylon was made during a time in which the Medes invaded Babylon, and the prophecy wasn't talking about this event, but a far future one.

I'd compare Luke's paper with others, like Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul's testimonies to check if his paper matches with what various others have said about the topic. Look's like Luke's lucky that his testimony is the same as the others'.

Does Luke talk about Herod going baby-killer on us? Because, you know, when you compare papers, and other authors talk about events that others don't, it starts t look iffy.

And evolution has been really proven already.

Yeah, but you know, things like the Flat Earth Society still exist, so I don't think proof moves some people.

And why, again, are we discussing biblical scripture here? Just wondering.

I dunno =/ Say something creationist-y.

[Chevalier Sombre]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Yeah, but you know, things like the Flat Earth Society still exist, so I don't think proof moves some people.

Pretty much. If people really want to believe something, no amount of proof will convince them to believe otherwise. This applies here very well. Creationism was the only explanation for the origin of the universe for thousands of years, and gave people comfort and hope. Now that we're starting to find proof against it...

I dunno =/ Say something creationist-y.

Uh...lol irreducible complexity? :3

[aquaVen]

What proof is there against creationsim? None, and sadly there really is no proof that God exists... But thats the thing we, as Christians, have to have faith that God exists and that he takes care of his children. Not everyone is capable of faith and of giving someone their complete trust, and Im not looking down on non-religious people, Im just defending my belief of creationism and the fact that we didnt "evolve" but that we were created by a Divine Being, that being God.

[Phoenix]

What proof is there against creationsim?

Young-Earth Creationism? Tons. Geology, Biology, Paleontology, History, pick one and I'll bring at least 5 examples.

And either way, the same way scientists prove evolution right everyday, it's a creationist's job to prove creationism right, not a scientist's. If I wanted to revive the concept of free energy, it'd be my job to prove it exists, not the world's job to prove it doesn't.

Lastly, I have a question. How do you reconcile the belief that all animals existed on Noah's Ark with creationism? Are you aware of how many species exist in this world? Were they all on the ark?

[DuskTop]

Lastly, I have a question. How do you reconcile the belief that all animals existed on Noah's Ark with creationism? Are you aware of how many species exist in this world? Were they all on the ark?

Actually a theory that has been brought up is that not every species were brought on the ark but all kinds not species. Kind meaning a cat for instead of all the tigers, lions and other felines.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all gospels anonymous? So you should have no idea if they were direct followers of Christ?

Yeah you're kind of wrong. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Hm who wrote those?

[Phoenix]

Actually a theory that has been brought up is that not every species were brought on the ark but all kinds not species. Kind meaning a cat for instead of all the tigers, lions and other felines.

Define "kind" and define "species".

Also, ultimately irrelevant. For a "kind" of feline to turn into a lion, a tiger, a domestic cat, etc, you need evolution.

Yeah you're kind of wrong. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Hm who wrote those?

"The evangelists do not introduce themselves by name within the works and there is no evidence that the ancient titles are the original ones. Some modern scholars therefore consider it safer to assume the authors to have been anonymous, and the names to have been attributed to the accounts by later generation Christians for reasons other than actual authorship. Traditionally, however, the four evangelists have been held to be two of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus of Nazareth, John and Matthew, and two "apostolic men", Mark and Luke:"

=/

[violent_anger]

Also, ultimately irrelevant. For a "kind" of feline to turn into a lion, a tiger, a domestic cat, etc, you need evolution.

small evolution, not big evolution. otherwise he'd bring an amoeba and wait for it to become everything. yes i'm exaggerating.

[ikkuh2]

Even "big" evolution is possible, but creationism isn't scientific for the least bit, it has no evidence whatsoever.