Motorbike Rides and Bible Copyrights

As of yesterday (03/29/2012), my dad, sister, and I have been in a motorcycle basic safety training course at a Harley Davidson Motorcycle store. Today, day 2, was the first day we got to ride the bikes. Before it began, my sister was on a bike on display at the store and tried a little counter-steering on it (not in motion, of course), and she leaned and the bike leaned, and suddenly, the bike was too heavy for her support, so she (very slowly) fell to the ground with the bike, with most of the employees and other people watching. Needless to say, it was hilarious xD My sister was quite embarrassed. I was so worried- I hoped the bike was okay!

Kidding :)

Anyways, after she got up and a guy and I picked the bike up, she said to me, "I hope you fall and embarrass yourself!"

Later, during the riding portion of the class, I was making a turn and inadvertently twisted the throttle, and upon hearing the noise, I freaked out and slammed on the hand brakes. For those who don't know, slamming the hand brakes while the handlebars are turned is a big no-no. I fell. And the bike seriously crushed my foot. That was all it landed on. For the most part, I flew off, I think. I wasn't really paying attention to exactly what I was doing when I made, as my instructor put it, my demonstration of an unintentional dismount xD

Though the other instructor, when he saw me slam to the ground, saw blood. So when they pulled the bike off me and came to me, he pointed out that he saw the blood first and was worried about where it was coming from, and when he said it, I realized a small pain in my right elbow and, sure enough, the thing is scraped real good. Though my elbow is the least of my worries with my foot having been crushed.

Thank God I have crooked legs. When I fell (front first), my foot twisted in the direction where it didn't feel like it was being twisted too much. See, when my knees are in their straight, natural position, my feet point outward. and my foot, when being crushed, wasn't turned too far off from its normal position. And thank God I was wearing boots. Had I been wearing my tennis shoes, I think my foot probably would have been destroyed. What they say about safety gear is right! Wear it, people!

And no, I didn't scream in pain or anything :P When I landed and the bike got on my foot, I just lay there. They took a couple seconds to get to me, so I kinda sighed and tapped my fingers a bit and said, "Hurry, please!" Hey, the thing was hurting! Right as I said that though, one instructor told me the other one was right there, and I felt him trying to get the bike off, and call the other one for assistance. But that all may know, I was not a wimp about it :P

My foot seems to be fine for the time being, we're gonna wait and see how it is in the morning. I'm still limping around, but it doesn't feel broken or sprained, thank God. Maybe I can keep taking the class tomorrow. I hope.

Anyways, the other half of the title, the Bible copyrights.

Another KJV-only argument has been presented to me on more than one occasion: the King James Bible is the only one without a copyright, and all the other ones have one. God would not use a copyrighted one so people can get rich from it, so it must be God's perfect translation.

First off, there's plenty of problems with the argument. They don't seem to take into consideration the cost of making a translation, so in order to cover those costs and not lose money, they'd have to copyright it so no one steals their work and the profits go to them. And what's wrong with them making a little profit? I mean, of course, they shouldn't be cutting corners and getting a ton more money than they should be getting, but they gotta make a living! Just like everyone else does. And besides, who says God can't use a something copyrighted to be His perfect Bible? What, is God too cheap to use a copyrighted translation?

But, I found something that completely destroys that argument: the KJV has a copyright.

You read it right, the thing has a copyright! The copyright is held in the U.K. The reason we use it freely here (and anywhere outside the U.K.) is because the U.K. doesn't enforce the copyright laws on the KJV outside it. I found that out by accident while reading the KJV's article on Wikipedia. Since people don't like to believe Wikipedia, I Googled it and verified it. The KJV does, in fact, have a copyright and its copyright laws are held in the U.K. and enforced only in the U.K.
Just for anyone's devil's advocate side, you can't say the KJV's copyright not being enforced in America shows that God uses it as the perfect translation only in America. That is a cop-out one can't even prove. If one has been saying the KJV is the only holy translation of the Bible, one can't all of a sudden change one's mind to attempt to keep the upper hand. One made the assertion that it didn't have any copyright and therefore it's God's; now that it does have a copyright, it's only for America? That's gonna pose plenty of problems for whoever tries to go that route.

Now, I realize just because it has a copyright doesn't mean it isn't still God's one and only perfect and inspired translation, but one certainly cannot be going around saying that it doesn't have a copyright, and that not having one proves it's God's. One just can't do it. So bad argument there. It's founded on a lie.

And honestly, if being a KJV-onlyist means making arguments founded on nothing but lies that I've been spoon-fed by die-hard KJV-only pastors, I don't wanna be one...


J-Lindo

Jesus Lying?

This was first shown to me as an argument for the KJV, though I imagine it's probably an issue with some people who have a bone to pick with the Bible.

The argument was shown to me like this: John 7:8 in the KJV says, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for My time is not yet full come." Then in most other translations (we'll use NIV), it'll say something like, "You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because My time has not yet fully come.” Then you go to verse 10, and in the KJV, it says, "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." And in the NIV (and some other translations), it goes like, "However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." Okay, what's the deal?

The idea is, the KJV (and, may I note, a few others as well) have the word "yet" in verse 8, while the other translations do not, so it appears that Jesus is saying, "I'm not going." then goes later, while in the KJV He says, "I'm not going yet." and goes later.

Today, when I thought about it, the first thing that came to my mind after I mentally reviewed that argument was, "Would the translators who made the NIV deliberately leave out the 'yet' if they knew it was probably in the originals? Would translators who produce other translations? Perhaps one or even two, but there's plenty of translations missing a 'yet'." I then did a little Googling to see if I could find a case that legitimately showed even without the "yet," Jesus wouldn't have lied, even though it looked like He did. Obviously, there's always an answer, and I found some, but none really convinced me much, except for one, which said something about the Greek sentence structure with verse 8 is present tense, so it could be rendered in English also as, "I'm not now going." I tried to verify it, but I just don't think I can figure out the stuff with the Greek. (If someone could help me verify it that would know what to look for, I'd love to know your thoughts on it.) Though it does sound legit. But my devil's advocate side says, "If that's how it could be rendered, why didn't they put it there so people could understand it better?" I couldn't really think of an answer, so I just started mulling over it for a while. Some had said something about the context, others the Greek, some the grammar... How to come up with a legit-sounding answer that shows the 'yet' is implied whether it's there or not?

It hit me.

Look at that context again. John 7:1-10 NIV, "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill Him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to Him, 'Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that Your disciples there may see the works You do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since You are doing these things, show Yourself to the world.' For even His own brothers did not believe in Him. Therefore Jesus told them, 'My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because My time has not yet fully come.' After He had said this, He stayed in Galilee. However, after His brothers had left for the festival, He went also, not publicly, but in secret."

First off, what's this feast? Google helped me with this one. It's Sukkot- The Feast of the Tabernacles, or the Feast of the Booths. It lasts about a week, and it's to commemorate the time when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the desert. Very important Jewish holiday. In fact, Hebrew4Christians.com says it's the most important of all holidays.
Now, let's remember, the Jews are all believers in God. (In those times, I mean.) Everyone in Israel practiced the customs and holidays because God had commanded them to back in the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible). Anyone who is a Jew and doesn't observe this holiday is, well, probably unheard of. This is serious stuff. And what's Jesus? A Jew. And it's obvious He believes God exists and knows the Torah very well.
This same Jesus tells His brothers (well, half-brothers, technically) that He's not going to this festival, after they mockingly invite Him to go with them and show Himself to be the Messiah He claims to be. Yet His bros are not shocked at all. The Bible doesn't record the brothers being shocked or anything. Now, I know it actually doesn't give their response at all. But if Christians are to take  the Bible as being inerrant, would they believe John stopped writing in the middle of the conversation between Jesus and His brothers? If John is being the honest writer we assume he's being, we can assume Jesus' answer was final and His brothers didn't push Him any more. So where is the shock and questioning of Jesus as for His reasoning for not going to partake of this feast? This was a huge thing to say you're Jewish, obey the Torah, then go and say you're gonna disobey it. But it appears as if they just left without a fight. Why would they have done that unless they and Jesus knew something we don't? The only explanation is that Jesus did, in fact, mean He was not going to go with them, especially publicly, and He was not going right now, and implied He was gonna go later. And that He did in verse 10. Privately, of course.

Now, the devil's advocate is telling me, "But that just has to mean the 'yet' was there!" Not necessarily. Lots of manuscripts have it with it, lots have it without it, so it's hard to really tell if it's supposed to be there or not. But whether it is or not, it's most certainly implied in the context.

"If it's that certain, why don't all translations just take out 'yet'?" Well, apparently it's not that certain. I imagine there's some we can't quite tell how old they are. There's probably lots of other reasons, I don't know. And I doubt most people reading this actually study ancient documents for themselves. But the translators likely use their own judgement and discretion about what they believe was originally in there and what wasn't. That's what I believe is probably the case- some translators feel it's necessary to put in the "yet" (or "now") and others don't. And besides, with the kind of reasoning mentioned, why does it matter if 'yet' is there or not? It's certainly implied in the context. If one can see that, one should know that other translations, even without "yet," do not portray Jesus as a liar.

Note: I came up with this idea myself. If it's right, then I believe it to be from God, showing me the answer.  But I want all to know I haven't (intentionally) stolen anyone's ideas. If someone's thought of this before me, more power to them. Thank God I finally caught onto it :)

J-Lindo

Adam and Earth

Dude. I only realized when I typed the title how punny it sounded.

Anyways, I've kinda recently come to believe it's at least possible (scratch that, I'm really leaning towards it being probably true) the Earth is as old as most scientists say, being around 4.6 billion years old. Among other reasons, I believe it's because 1) God and science do go hand in hand and 2) it doesn't really matter how old it is; it's silly to hold onto the belief of 6,000 years just because it's all one has been taught. If one calls me a heretic for believing the Earth is that old, what reason do they have for it? What doctrine of salvation does it alter?

Anyways, about a month ago-ish, my Philosophy and Apologetics teacher took my brother out to spend a bit of time with him and get to know him. He came back to drop him off while there was a deaf party going on (for all who don't know, my parents are deaf), though of course, there were some hearing people there too. Anyways, the point is, the teacher came in his van with my brother, dropped him off, and I stopped him before he drove off and gave him the essay I'd written for my semester final in his class. His wife, who's also the Writing and English teacher, had read them all and graded them, and she spoke highly of mine and he'd wanted to read it. So I hopped in the van with him, since it was cold, and we started talking a bit. In the end, we'd stayed there talking for perhaps one or two hours. I really love talking with him. He's got the most interesting ideas and interpretations of the Bible, most of which I'd never heard before, so I'm always eager for him to share his thoughts.
Anyways (I say anyways a lot, don't I?), part of the conversation went to the age of the Earth. He's the one who introduced me to the idea of Earth being as old as 4.6 billion years, so we discussed it a bit. I do believe it, but I prefer being beyond reasonable doubt. I know there are some who compromise between the whole 6,000 years and 4.6 billion years and say, "God created Earth with age, just as He did with Adam. Adam was a full-grown man when he was formed, yet he would've been only a few days old after creation." And it's not a bad theory, I could live with it if it were true. So I asked about his thoughts on it. He said it's possible, though if it were true, it would make God look like a deceiver, having Earth be so young yet look so old. And of course, it's satan, not God, who is the father of lies. With this point taken, I played devil's advocate and said, "What about Adam, though? The Bible does seem to imply he was formed as a full-grown man." It was there he admitted, "I don't know." And of course, we found plenty of other stuff to talk about, but for a while, I've been mulling over that one. How can Earth and the Universe all truly be old, yet Adam be formed with age? And I started coming up with an answer, but it wasn't until last night (at the time of this typing, so "last night" is March 25, 2012) that I finally found out how to word it. I went to his church, of which he is pastor, and after service, sat with him and began a conversation and got around to talking about this subject, and the words formed right in my head: The reason the world and universe can be first created without age, yet Adam be created with it? "There was no one to deceive."
Of course! And when I said that to him, he closed his eyes and laughed for a bit. I'm not sure if he found it funny or if he was laughing in that way one laughs when something obvious hits them that they'd overlooked. Maybe both, I don't know. But he agreed, that was definitely a good explanation. Assuming there was no one before Adam (believe it or not, there are some who believe in a pre-Adamic race of humans, and there's all sorts of reasons and such, but that's a topic I'll mull over and research later), it would be perfectly alright if he were made with age, because there was no one around to deceive! We can still see the Earth and observe it, so of course God wouldn't want anything to be deceptive, especially its age. But as far as I know, we haven't found Adam, and we probably never will, so we would never be able to measure how old his bones are, so we could never be tricked by them looking older than they are!

I love thinking :) I don't know why a lot of people don't want to. It's so fun seeing what one can come up with! Not to brag on myself, of course. Not trying to do that.

But hey, waddaya think? Any holes in my theory? I don't mind being criticized or proven wrong.

J-Lindo

Why Not? KJV Discussions

xD Admit it, you love it!!!

For those who don't know, it's a parody of the app Philosoraptor, for iPhone and Android. It's got that pic of the philosoraptor and a green background with two shades of green, and it'll have a random philosophical caption. Eg. "If tomatoes are fruits... Isn't ketchup a smoothie?" It makes a pun of Philoso-raptor.

...Anyways. This was meant for humor, I promise. Though, I sent it to two friends to see how they'd react. The first one, despite being a KJV-only believer, took it humorously. Though at first, she thought I was trying to start something up again, so I had to tell her I was just trying to make her laugh. Then we had a nice discussion about it. She's the kind that doesn't get upset incredibly easy, I like it. She can have a nice discussion with you, even if you believe the polar opposite of her. Or if you believe like she does, with some exceptions (such as not believing the KJV is the perfect Word of God). She's really nice about it. From there, I told her my thoughts on it. What I said was: "My line of thinking is: if the KJV is the perfect translation, it must be how God talks, hence it being called the Word of God. If we have God's own nature in us when we're saved, and that's how He talks, why do we pray and talk to Him in modern English?" She goes something like, "Well, that's how they spoke back then. Now that the times are later and language is changing everyday, we talk modern English." and I asked, "But does He?" Then she goes, "That's something you'd have to ask Him haha. The Bible says He's never changing."
Another thing I like about her- if she doesn't know, she says so instead of trying to come up with some feeble argument or insult. And the discussion is kept really nice! People should discuss this stuff this way more often.
That's why I sent her the pic first :P I knew she'd take it well and be cool if any discussion comes up.

On the other hand, I sent it to another friend who also believes in KJV-only (coincidentally, this is the girl-mentioned-above's brother) and he didn't take it well. He responded with Jude 1:18, which says, "How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." And he accused me of making a joke out of the Bible. I then said I did not, as the picture does not make fun of the Bible at all, but does make an interesting point. He then said, "The KJV is the Bible and I said that it was a joke therefore I made the Bible out to be a joke." ...No, I didn't. All it does is question why some people don't pray like the KJV is written if they believe so fiercely about it. In a humorous way, yes, but what better way to bring an important matter up, than with a little laughter? He then responded with a phantom argument, saying, "Some people do." I said, "Not the majority, as far as I can tell." Then I texted him my line of thinking that I said above to his sister, adding at the end, "We're supposed to be separated from the world anyway, right?" Then he said something that really bothered me. He said, "We sin, so does God sin? We have His nature, so God must sin." That almost sounds like something an atheist would say to a Christian. First off, it's completely irrelevant, but that's irrelevant. I hope you people know, when one acquires the nature of God, as the relationship between the human and God builds over time, the human is able to think God's thoughts, feel His feelings, speak His words. Sin is out of the question, especially more and more as time goes by and the relationship grows ever stronger. To just accept we still sin after we're saved is just... as if one doesn't think God is even able to completely change us. Of course, there hasn't been a known person that hasn't ever sinned again after they were saved. But that's no excuse to accept the fact of sinning after salvation. When one sins, it damages the relationship with God, so it's a devastating thing to do.
In fact, it almost sounds like an excuse to sin. "I need to tell you something. God told me to tell you, _______ is what you're doing, it's sin, and you need to stop." "Dude, we all sin after we're saved." Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.

I didn't go on about that, though I did sum it up in a reply: "If we have His nature, why continue in sin any longer?" He then asked, "Ask yourself that."
Honestly, that sounds like something out of a movie. What do you think?
Anyways, I'm not one to be "impacted" by movie lines, so I replied with, "I'm asking you. My answer is, there's no excuse to." And I basically said what I just said in that long paragraph above, but shorter.

Right after that, he goes, "Why don't you think the KJV is the Word of God? I just don't get it."
O.o Talk about major rabbit hole! I even called him out on it, "Goodness, you just love making the most random rabbit holes, don't you? xD"
I didn't wanna irritate him by making that into a rabbit hole, so I answered the question. "It's simply because I look at the evidence, and I look at the KJV-only arguments, and that's where it points."
He goes, "What?" I'm not sure if he didn't understand what I said (it did sound a little vague, I guess) or if he was just shocked. So I expanded a little more, saying, "I mean I've looked at the arguments KJV-onlyists make, and I look and think about the evidence, and it seems to point to the KJV being a translation, not the perfect Word of God, excluding all other translations. Of course, it's the Word of God in English, but no more that than the NASB or ESV."
He then goes, "How do you know the ESV and NASB are good?" and I say, "I don't. I don't know enough Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to tell if any translation is good. Do you?"
It's right here he pulls out his ace-in-the-hole. "No, but I have faith."

Had he said that before I took Philosophy and Apologetics class, I prolly couldn't have come up with a really good answer. That really looks like he's got me cornered there.
I then ask, "Where does it come from? In that case, I could have faith about the NIV."
He replies with, "My faith comes from God, and I know without a doubt the KJV is the one and only Word of God."
Again, with the ace-in-the-hole. How am I gonna beat it? This way.
"At this point, you're essentially insulting me rather than arguing. You're hinting that I'm faithless, which doesn't prove anything about the KJV being perfect or not."

He never replied.

My sister said he's probably upset at me. I've not known him to stay upset with me forever, though :)

J-Lindo

Jon on the Revelation

Before Spring Break began, my Philosophy/Apologetics teacher said something in a brief discussion the class had on the book of Revelation. He told us the idea of Revelation talking mostly about something that was still in the future, the Beast and his mark, the End Times, the Rapture, etc. weren't actually what the book was about, and the prophecies in the book had, in fact, already been fulfilled. He mentioned Daniel, when the angel talked to him during his visions of the future. The angel told Daniel, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end... Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Daniel 12:4, 9) According to his sources, it was about 300 years until everything had been fulfilled, and 560-600 years after when John wrote the book of Revelation, in which an angel told John, "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." (Revelation 22:10)

Actually, he never gave the references- I found them on my own. According to my sources, it was roughly 560-700 years of space between Daniel and Revelation. So here's my train of thought that does mirror my teacher's: if "seal, shut up, and close the words" is said and fulfilled within a few hundred years, but "seal not" means 2,000+ years, something must be wrong.

I've long believed 2,000 were supposed to be a short time and all that stuff in Revelation was gonna be "soon," though apparently "soon" could mean another few decades. I've believed "soon" meant 2,000+ years.

I'm questioning it now, after seeing Daniel. Daniel was told to seal them up, then John was told not to 560-700 years later.

If "soon" means 2,000+ years, and "later" only around 560-700 years, something's wrong. I have once questioned the idea of the Rapture, but now I'm questioning the whole idea of an End Times that's soon to come. Have I missed something? Possibly. I don't know. Will I do some thinking and perhaps a bit of research? Probably. I don't think I've thought or researched enough in this area to answer every question/argument thrown at me, although I wouldn't mind some to help stimulate my thinking. Believe it or not, good questions and arguments motivate me quite well to think and research more.

Anyways, just something to chew on for a bit. Part of me hopes I'm wrong, because if this idea is right and there won't be an End Times like most think there will be, imagine the disappointment and lots of lost faith when it finally is revealed to the majority of the Christians. Then again, if Christians do lose their faith because their long-held beliefs about the End Times were wrong, it shows their faith was not rooted in Christ alone.

To add on to that last part, for the Christians who read this, don't let it shake you. Really, why does it matter if there's gonna be an End Times or not? Nothing about it pertains to the core doctrines of getting to Heaven, faith in Christ and a loving relationship with Him. The End Times happening will not (or rather, should not) affect one's relationship with Christ, nor will it change the doctrine of salvation, whether it's right or wrong. Is it interesting to talk about? Sure. Like discussing whether the Earth is around 6,000 or billions of years old. It's stimulating, it's even fun sometimes, but don't let someone's beliefs about the Earth's age or the End Times make you think they're not as deep-rooted in the faith as you are- it is prideful and downright stupid. They don't affect Christ's deity or His position as God, Savior, and the loving being He is.

Until the next post,

J-Lindo

Revelation on the John

I had a small revelation while I was sittin' on the toilet last night. My aunt, uncle, step-grandpa, step-uncle, and I were talking a bit of theology, and it came around to following the law and how we really need not focus on "Is this sin?" rather than "Does this come between me and God?" And I pointed out that the law itself is in us already, because God bases His law on His nature. When we get saved, God's own nature becomes embedded in us, and we take it on as our own, and then we very naturally follow the law, since the law's foundation was the nature we now have. Here's my small revelation though:
Proverbs 3:1-4 (KJV) "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man."
I honestly think this is as much God talking to His children as it is Solomon talking to his son, if not more. If God's child is to let his/her heart keep His commandments, His law, and bind it around their neck and write it on the table of their heart, it would have to become part of their own nature. Giving a man two tablets and having His children attempt to follow His law from the outside isn't gonna work. Like Solomon wrote, and like Jesus said in the New Testament, it must come from the inside. The only way for that to happen is for one to become born again as God's child, having His nature instead of our own.
I do think I'll be reading Proverbs in a different light now.
That's all for now! I gotta get up.
J-Lindo

Chattanooga and the Big Bang

I'm in Tennessee for the weekend! Staying at my grandparents' place and visiting aunts, uncles, and cousins. Having a good time so far. Last night I was at my aunt Liz's house, and for dessert, we had vanilla ice cream with chocolate and caramel syrup :D I was quite happy.

Enough about me. Here's something I feel like explaining.

The Big Bang- most Christians, as far as I know, don't believe its real. Stupid little religion and fairy tale atheists use so God doesn't have to exist, anything scientists says about it is a lie. Right?

I don't think so.

Let's start with this: everything with a beginning has a cause. Everyone will agree on this, I'm sure. Despite the excuses given to cops, nothing happens for no reason. Whether for a mental, physical, or moral or whatever else reason, there's a cause for everything that has a beginning.

Now that's settled. What do Big Bang advocates believe the Big Bang is? The beginning of the universe, as well as space and time and the existence of everything within this universe.

If the universe had this beginning, it must have had a cause, correct? I believe it's ridiculous to believe something can come from nothing without a cause.

Of course, the idea of something coming from nothing even with a cause is just crazy. Unless the cause is the only one thing it could possibly be: the all-powerful God. Why is God the only candidate, though?

The Big Bang is the beginning of the existence of everything within the universe, everything physical. Meaning there was nothing- nothing physical, nothing scientific, just absolutely nothing. No existence of science. No existence of anything except anything without a beginning. Only something- or Someone- eternal and therefore without beginning could have done such a miracle. Yes, the Big Bang, I believe, is the biggest and most widespread miracle of all.

But wait! The Bible says God spoke and the universe came into existence! The Big Bang contradicts that!
How? Who says God didn't speak, and boom! the Big Bang was the result of God commanding existence?
I do like to wonder how other Christians imagine the universe came into existence without the Big Bang though. Perhaps God spoke and all things just faded into existence? Y'know, like that fade effect in some videos and movies where it fades into black, then fades into the next scene? I could believe that, except I honestly don't think God would have science contradict Him. If the evidence truly shows evidence of a Big Bang, I see no reason to believe that's not what happened when God spoke.

I know what's on some of your minds- macroevolution and the billion years thing. Unhook them. I don't believe 1) the Big Bang has anything to do with macroevolution- for some reason, people join them together without thought. And 2) it doesn't matter how old the universe and the Earth are. They also don't have much to do with the Big Bang, although it does have more to do with it than macroevolution does. But for the record, I do not believe in macroevolution. Nor do I need to to believe the Big Bang happened.

That's all for today! I must get up and perhaps eat.

J-Lindo

Girls and Spit Up

Heh. My sister just told me, "You gotta sweep her off her feet, but you gotta have the right broom." Then I replied with, "I know what I'll do! I'll get a mop!"

Anyways. Why is it that one can attract many of the opposite sex, but never the one he really wants?
Truth is, I'm in the Friend Zone, and I don't know how to get out and get her to like me. I'm really sweet to her, tell her she's beautiful, am as kind as I can be. And what do I get? "I like you like a brother."
I really wanna get out, but don't know how. I've read little "tutorials," but most are either perverted or they assume the person the reader wants doesn't know he likes her. Perhaps it's a problem she knows I like her?
I doubt many people read this, but for anyone who does, do you have any clue(s) as to how I might at least get her a bit more interested?

Ironically, she said today, "You're a nice guy, anyone would want you." To which I replied, "Apparently not :P"

Away from that topic now... I imagine someone wants to know what of the spit-up. Well, my sister had some water in her mouth, and I said something funny, and she exploded. She didn't spit up on me that much, but some got on me.
Though recently, I had another incident similar to this one which involved a girl who's got the same name as my sister. I was having lunch at my teacher's house (we're homeschooled, and me and some other homeschoolers go to my teacher's house for Philosophy/Apologetics and British History classes), and this girl came in in time for lunch (she's only in the British History class) with some Arby's. She also had some Dr. Pepper. Eventually, we were sitting at opposite ends of the table, and I misheard what my sister said, and asked, "Did you say, '__________?'" (Blank because I forgot what it was.) The girl with Arby's and Dr. Pepper was in the middle of a drink, and as I said it, she laugh really hard and spewed all the Dr. Pepper in her mouth onto me. Which made everyone laugh even harder.

It was the first time I'd been baptized with Dr. Pepper xD
Though, to be quite honest, she is quite pretty, so I didn't really mind xP

Haha my kitty Tom just stole my mom's tissues and brought them to me. He's so cute.
Yes, I'm a guy, and I think this cat is cute. You'd prolly go "Aww" too if you saw his face. Especially if he brings you a tissue sacrifice.

Tomorrow I'll be going to my grandparents' house, then later on go to my other grandparents' house. I hear we'll have a late celebration of my uncle's birthday.

I guess that's all for tonight. Until next time,

J-Lindo

J-Lintro

Heyllo to all, I'm J-Lindo. Uhm... What to say about myself?

Let's see. How'd I come up with the nickname/screenname J-Lindo? Actually, I didn't. One of my closest friends came up with it, parodying the nickname of Jennifer Lopez, J-Lo. I loved it and decided to use it as my screenname.

I'm a Christian. A strange one though, as I believe it's possible for the Big Bang to actually have happened and am not a KJV-only person, yet my default Bible is the KJV. I love debates and discussions about this kind of stuff. Preferably over text though, I stumble and stammer while debating in person. I guess text gives you more time to carefully plan out one's words, I don't know. And the fact that the person one is debating is not physically there to strangle you is also a plus :D

I also have kinda a habit of using those little face thingies. Another oddity- I'm born and bred Southern, but I don't like cornbread or greenbeans (especially green beans- blech!). I type with proper spelling and grammar and whatnot, but I also lean towards adding in some of that southern dialect- "Do what, now?" "Ain't never gonna happen to me." Stuffs like that.

i used 2 type like this, but i eventually stopped. yknow with all the plz & thx nd idk ys that stufz.

Enough of that, then. I'm 17 and 6'4 and have the capability to grow a full beard, and have since I was 15, though I just keep a goatee. I may eventually try doing a Shaggy cosplay, just for kicks.

If you couldn't tell by my profile pic, or whatever it's called on the blog, I love Star Wars. Ironically, finding the tutorial on how to make the beam of a lightsaber in Paint Shop Pro was completely by accident.
I've also stumbled upon a tutorial on how to make Force Lightning (what you see Darth Hideous, erm, Sidious and Count Dooku doing), though it was for Photoshop, so I had to translate all the instructions so I could do it in Paint Shop Pro.

I use an older version of Paint Shop Pro, version 7. 7.04, to be exact. I hear there's an unofficial 7.05 update somewhere though...
I've grown quite used to it, and I don't look forward to the day when I finally have to drop it.

I also love parodies. So my favorite musician/band is ApologetiX, that Christian parody band. I also love Weird Al.

I have a deviantArt account by the same username. Here- click on this link to check it out.

'nough 'bout me. Do communicate, and I will try to post something or other. It may be some philosophical thoughts, it may be a rant. Maybe something interesting I've found, who knows? We'll see what's on my mind in the near future. Until then,

J-Lindo