Tangible proof is here

[dad]

Survey says: X

Etymology of luck -
15c. from M.Du. luc, shortening of gheluc "happiness, good fortune," of unknown origin. Related to M.H.G. g(e)lücke, Ger. Glück "fortune, good luck." Perhaps first borrowed in Eng. as a gambling term. Lucky break dates from 1938. To luck out "succeed through luck" is Amer.Eng. colloquial, first attested 1954.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=luck

Unknown orgin. But some things I have heard try to associate it with things like an Egyptian goddess, or Loki, or some other bad spirits. Since it is unknown, these could actually be right then, it is just that the word whizs do not realize it. There is a spiritual connection.

 

[dad]

Wow a parodady thread thats more about apologetics (and that's stretching it) has four pages of replies, while other prefectly good threads die without even getting ten. Sad guys... just sad.

.

 

[Hydra009]

Unknown orgin. But some things I have heard try to associate it with things like an Egyptian goddess, or Loki, or some other bad spirits. Since it is unknown, these could actually be right then, it is just that the word whizs do not realize it. There is a spiritual connection.

lol, the facts are so much easier when you make them up. Good luck with that.

 

[Maxwell511]

lol, the facts are so much easier when you make them up. Good luck with that.

Don't curse him with the "l" word.

 

[dad]

lol, the facts are so much easier when you make them up. Good luck with that.

these folks seem to think they have er nailed down, and sure enough, it kind of agrees with me on this. -Only goes to show that the unknown for the world maybe is more known by the spiritual.

"
Before we proceed to this "luck" as a word, we would like to emphasis the fact that the idea of "luck" in itself is totally un-Scriptural, just like "fortune". This is the reprimand of Isa. 65:11, namely, that "good luck" and "fortune" are being relied on, instead of us relying on Yahúweh . We should be entirely dependant on His blessings, which we can only receive from him if we live a life dedicated to Him and in obedience to His Word, His Son.
The word "Luck", derived from a name for the Sun-deity, is not found as such in the older English translations of the Scriptures, but the words "lucky" and "un-lucky" appear seven times in the Good New Bible. However, it is most frequently used in our everyday language. In the German, Netherlands and Afrikaans versions the word is used indeed as gluck or geluk, the latter, and probably the former too, being a word derived from the original form, luk. This fact can be verified in Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, vol. VIII, part II, pp. 3304 - 3306. We read here that luk was originally a vox media, a spiritistic medium. Also, that luk was also written luck, luc, lucke, lok, lock (pp. 3304 and 3306). On p. 3305 it states that Luk was also the name of a "personified Goddess of Luck." In The Oxford English Dictionary, vol. VII, p. 486, we read that the ultimate etymology of "Luck" or middle High Dutch gelucke, or Middle High German gelucke, is "obscure". Walshe, a Concise German Etymological Dictionary, under "Gluck", also states that the origin of this word is obscure. So, once again, "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4), Satan, has blinded the eyes, has deceived the whole world (Rev. 12:9). The Prince of Darkness has seen to it that his evil work has been hidden, made obscure.
The common everyday saying "One for luck", is most probably just a continuation of the old pagan Nordic expression, "One for god and one for Wod (Wodin or Wodan), and one for Lok", of which we read of in Karl Helm, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, p. 265. Please remember that the above quoted Netherlands dictionary stated that luck, luk and lok are just different spellings for the same word. Forlong, Encyclopedia of Religions, vol. 2, p. 463, says that Luk is an ancient root for "light" and related to Loki. In Gray's Mythology of All Races, vol. IX, p. 253, we read of "Luk the highest deity, as he was known in the Caroline Islands." Jobes, Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, on p. 1024, states that Luk was the highest primordial deity of the Caroline Islands. On the same page we read of "Lug, the Sun-deity himself" and again of "Lugus, Gaelic Sun-deity." Jacob Grimm, Teutonic Mythology, reveals more of the obscure origin of this mysterious deity. The names Logi and Loki were merged in times of old.225 He further points out the apparent roots for these names to be: lucere, luken.226 He also reveals that Locke was the Danish for the burning sun, and the Jutland's Lokke was the heat of the sun, and that "Loki, is by turns taken ... for sun, fire, giant or devil."226 Luka was also known as the fire-deity, as we read on p. 242. Jacob Grimm on p. 82, vol. 1, of his Deutsche Mythologie, says that Lokki could be taken as an abbreviation of "Lucifer"! Scholars normally regard a fire-deity to be the same as a Sun-deity.
What does the word "Lucifer" basically mean? All dictionaries tell us it means luc or luci, plus fer or ferre, that means: light-bringer. According to some mythologists Lucifer was the son of Zeus (Sky-deity) and Eos (Dawn-deity).227 In the King James Version we read only once of Lucifer, and that is in Isa. 14:12 where the king of Babylon is called: Lucifer. This was taken over from the Latin Vulgate, and many scholars prefer to use other words which more correctly translate the Hebrew Helel, pronounced: Hailail or Heileil. This word basically means "the shining one" or "the bright one". Apart from the interpretation of this king of Babylon as being "Lucifer", we find some calling him "morning star". Others, with good documented evidence, believe that Helel (Heileil) is Jupiter,228 the Sky-deity, which later became the sun-deity, also called Marduk-Jupiter228 - Marduk being the well-known Babylonian Sun-deity. J.W. McKay made a thorough study of this Helel in his article, Helel and the Dawn-goddess, in Vetus Testamentum, XX (1970), pp. 451-464, and he also mentions the strong evidence for Helel (Heileil) being the Sun-deity or being Jupiter. According to Isa. 14:12, Helel is the son of Dawn or Daybreak. Most pagan nations have the myth of the female Dawn-deity giving her birth to her son, the Sun-deity. Thus, this Scripture reveals to us that the "king of Babylon" is indeed the Shining One, the Sun, or Jupiter. ..."
http://www.iahushua.com/ST-RP/christ.htm

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hope I don't misunderstand here, but are you suggesting somehow that the spiritual is not a big factor in the future?

If this actually was some innocent comment to someone else, and I took it wrong, disregard the post, and carry on.

No, I am not saying it's not a worthwhile subject. It would be better if this was put into the apologetics section as this one deals with science. You are talking about prophecy.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Wow a parodady thread thats more about apologetics (and that's stretching it) has four pages of replies, while other prefectly good threads die without even getting ten. Sad guys... just sad.

Trolls always attract more attention.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Unknown orgin. But some things I have heard try to associate it with things like an Egyptian goddess, or Loki, or some other bad spirits. Since it is unknown, these could actually be right then, it is just that the word whizs do not realize it. There is a spiritual connection.

There might be... and if there was, then you'd just provided strong evidence in favor of Loki.

The Norse Pantheon thanks you for your efforts.

 

[AirPo]

Trolls always attract more attention.

Feeding frenzy!

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

let me see if i understand...


since the chance of the prophecies being fulfilled is so astronomically small, that they are filled, is proof of God.


since the theory of evolution being correct (from the CreationISM POV) is so astrononmically small, that we find a evidence for evolution, that is proof that Evolution is correct.

i'm i missing something here...



metta,

~v

 

[dad]

No, I am not saying it's not a worthwhile subject. It would be better if this was put into the apologetics section as this one deals with science. You are talking about prophecy.

I am saying old ageism is prophesy, and they teach kids the galaxy will smash into another one day, and the sun will burn out, and, etc. Prophesy or predictions based on a claim that is unproven that the past and the future is just physical as the present is!
Science deals with things in the natural, physical, present, and they are purely presumed anywhere else. That excercise is not science, and yet it is discussed as such!
Evidences of a real spiriual world across the ages and belief spectum constitute evidence there is such a thing. In a million different ways. Bible prophesy is such a proof, and as such more admissible than old age baseless presumptions!
How christians let people walk all over kid's faith, and stomp on it, I will never understand. The science we have does not extend into the future except by belief, therefore is less science than aother beliefs that have evidence, rather than none.

 

[Mystman]

Wow a parodady thread thats more about apologetics (and that's stretching it) has four pages of replies, while other prefectly good threads die without even getting ten. Sad guys... just sad.

My last thread got 1.

Reply. Not pages.

Oh well.

 

[dad]

My last thread got 1.

Reply. Not pages.

Oh well.

.

 

[Mystman]

...

meanie

 

[dad]

meanie

Cheer up we all do it. I'm sure your ideas are great. I have threads that die quickly as well. My ideas happen to be controversial, so sometimes it starts a little fire, that I may fan if I feel like it.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I am saying old ageism is prophesy, and they teach kids the galaxy will smash into another one day, and the sun will burn out, and, etc. Prophesy or predictions based on a claim that is unproven that the past and the future is just physical as the present is!
Science deals with things in the natural, physical, present, and they are purely presumed anywhere else. That excercise is not science, and yet it is discussed as such!
Evidences of a real spiriual world across the ages and belief spectum constitute evidence there is such a thing. In a million different ways. Bible prophesy is such a proof, and as such more admissible than old age baseless presumptions!
How christians let people walk all over kid's faith, and stomp on it, I will never understand. The science we have does not extend into the future except by belief, therefore is less science than aother beliefs that have evidence, rather than none.

Simply Bunk
Go post in the apologetics forum

This forum is for CREATION and EVOLUTION
It isn't for PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Yours is not even talking about science

Please don't try to spin that it is because you are being dishonest if you think so

 

[dad]

Simply Bunk
Go post in the apologetics forum

This forum is for CREATION and EVOLUTION
It isn't for PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Yours is not even talking about science

Please don't try to spin that it is because you are being dishonest if you think so

It is your old age bunk that is needing aplogetics! Creation involved a lot of things that were different than the present, and require a spiritual component to be argued in any intelligent manner. I would have thought a christian would comprehend this. Hyper evolution needs the spiritual, the flood needs the spiritual, many many things in the creation evolution debate need the spiritual. Except, of course the natural only old age side of the debate. Physical sciences is not the only field that use only the physical and natural as a basis for things. Anthropologists, and geologists, and all sorts of boxologists use it. This is the heart of the creation debate.
I do talk about science, and where it applies, the present. If you want to try to spin it into the past with no evidence and claim a monopoly on the creation/old age evolution debate go to an apologetics forum.
If you think evidences that exist for the supernatural are not germain, then quit stomping your feet and make a case.
The impression I get is that you think waving the white flag of surrender to knowledge and belief that does not keep any God or spiritual in it is the only part of a creation debate.

 

[AirPo]

Is is your old age bunk that is needing aplogetics! Creation involved a lot of things that were different than the present, and require a spiritual component to be argued in any intelligent manner. I would have thought a christian would comprehend this. Hyper evolution needs the spiritual, the flood needs the spiritual, many many things in the creation evolution debate need the spiritual. Except, of course the natural only old age side of the debate. Physical sciences is not the only field that use only the physical and natural as a basis for things. Anthropologists, and geologists, and all sorts of boxologists use it. This is the heart of the creation debate.
I do talk about science, and where it applies, the present. If you want to try to spin it into the past with no evidence and claim a monopoly on the creation/old age evolution debate go to an apologetics forum.
If you think evidences that exist for the supernatural are not germain, then quit stomping your feet and make a case.
The impression I get is that you think waving the white flag of surrender to knowledge and belief that does not keep any God or spiritual in it is the only part of a creation debate.

No it doesn't, it onlys needs HI.