New Posts

Bradskii · 2025-11-07T23:38:32-0600

FireDragon76 said:
Not exactly. Relavists tend to think morality isn't ultimately anything but a socially enforced opinion.

I'm not someone who believes that. Lots of things have been and are socially enforced which I think are wrong. What is wrong is entirely up to me, not anyone else. So what society in general decides is irrelevant to my belief that something is wrong or right.

FireDragon76 said:
I believe morality is real, but it's bound up in human relationships and is therefore more complex than "X is always wrong".

And as a relativist, I agree with that. You could sum it up by saying that morality is contextual. I think you used the term 'contextualist' earlier. I have no problem in accepting that label myself.

Fervent · 2025-11-07T23:30:40-0600

I'm not familiar with their view, though William Lane Craig presents an argument that the historical/figurative divide is a false dilemma and that the original audiences would have understood the people and the genealogies to be actual history, which was then couched in etiological myths and theological tales. Essentially it is a preservation of oral histories, which were couched in cultural myths. So Adam and Eve are held to be genuine people, but not the original man and woman. So they are to be read literally, but when "literal" is understood it means in accordance with the conventions of the literary genre that the books exhibit. It's kind of like when a movie says "based on a true story" where there is some historical element, but liberties have been taken to serve a narrative purpose.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-07T23:30:22-0600

stevevw said:
I think any determinations about reality starts with observations. You can't do anything without observations. The difference is that in science its a 3rd party endeavour. Its looking from the outside in. Or rather removing the subject from the equation.

Whereas ancient and indigenous knowledge is including the subject. When you say by observation and (experience) I don't think science fully captures experience and especially conscious experiences as a layer or aspect of reality. They exclude this and for good reasons.

Science is only looking at one aspect of reality which is quantifiable in terms of a assumption that reality is fundementally physical or naturalistic and measured in terms of matter, particles, fields, forces and even epiphenomena that are caused by the physical such as consciousness.

So already we have a big gap or difference in how the world and reality is seen. Or before what is being measured as to what is reality. Science excludes a big chunk of human experiences and knowledge directly with nature and reality when immersed in it.

Before the age of Enlightenment and especially the further you go back we see a completely different worldview or reality. One governed by God or the gods or spirits or whatever transcedent belief was held. But fundementally the same.

So science cannot in the first place even understand this paradigm let alone make objective claims that all reality is tiny bits of matter and there is nothing beyond.

That is why I used the example of the Christian worldview and how this contains knowledge beyond the scientific material worldview. The observations at least with testimony are the same. Something happened beyond the naturalistic processes. The knowledge is different to the naturalistic explanations.

Thus on this basis unless you want to declare all religions and beliefs in such transcedent knowledge is all conspiracy and whacko. Which I think you can't because the methodology used is not even able to determine that. Then we have another layer of knowledge that is a reality itself and needs to be looked into as a real influence on reality, nature and the world.

Coming full circle now and after a few hundred years of Enlightement and science it seems strange that many areas of science are turning back to this fundemental idea that conscious experience and the role of the subject being immersed in reality which cannot really be seperated from it is gaining attention.

It seems we cannot really know reality when we seperate the subject out as there is always a subjective and transcedent element to it even in science.

So maybe the majority of our history being immersed in nature and reality as subjects and the knowledge that came from this was more real then perhaps what science tells us. Which came along relatively recent and purposely goes about seperating the subject out. Which actually also seperated a big chunk or knowledge about reality that seemed to be the majority of our history.

In fact not only seperates out but actively forces this aspect and knowledge out and thus we see the loss of Indigneous knowledge. Which I think points to this being more about belief than fact or truth ultimately or fundementally. In other words the methodology epistemically is forced over other ways of knowing.

Relegating the ancient and Indigenous knowledge as superstition or make belief when it was probably closer to reality than the material and naturalistic worldview. Or at least an important aspect that gives a deeper knowledge of reality.

There have been indigenous peoples living relatively undisturbed into the 20th century. Can you be more precise what you mean about indigenous knowledge, who could do what?

A2SG · 2025-11-07T23:29:40-0600

Larniavc said:
I confidently expect multiple threads opened vilifying this guy for reason that will rarely survive the most remedial of fact checking.

It will last at least until MAGA finds something else to distract people from Trump's failures as President.

-- A2SG, it's become a full time job for some of them....

Dan1988 · 2025-11-07T23:26:20-0600

BNR32FAN said:
Except God repeatedly rebukes the Israelites who didn’t obey His commandments, marveling at their unbelief. Why is He rebuking them and marveling at their unbelief if His commandments weren’t for them and He has not enabled them to believe? That would be like marveling at someone not being able to breath underwater.

I'm not sure why you chose to reject the bible doctrines of election and reprobation. I can only assume, it's because your denomination holds to the gospel of Jacob Arminius, instead of the gospel of the Lord Jesus.

Doctrine of election

Basis: God's sovereign, gracious choice, not based on any foreseen merit, faith, or good works in the individual.
Purpose: To save some people to display the glory of God's grace.
Object: Chosen people are "in Christ" and are chosen for adoption into his family.
Result: Those who are elected will be saved through God's effectual calling, regeneration, and other means of grace.

Doctrine of reprobation

Basis: God's sovereign decision to pass over some, which is often described as a negative counterpart to election.
Purpose: To manifest his justice and to highlight the grace of election in contrast to the condemnation of the reprobate.
Object: Those who are not elected. Their punishment for their sins is a result of their own actions, which God has, in his sovereignty, decided to allow.
Distinction: Some Reformed theologians distinguish between election and reprobation by noting that election is an active work of God to change a person's heart, while reprobation is God leaving individuals to their sinful state. God does not actively cause the sin of the reprobate; he simply does not work to create salvation in them

Romans 9:19-21
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

1 Peter 2:8 "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do".

NBB · 2025-11-07T23:24:35-0600

BobRyan said:
that was not a matter of accusing anyone of anything.

Rather I am pointing to the weakness of the argument that says "if I don't care about one of the Ten Commandments then that must be ok since I don't care about it".

The idea leads to "Whatever I care about must be the reals objective standard, not what God's Word says". Jesus Hims undercuts that kind of argument by pointing out that "people will feel like destroying the saints", just going by feelings is not sound measure of right vs wrong.

That would be true for all of us.

Thing is, scripture supports no sabbath keeping for christians.
Also like i said the Holy spirit would get offended if you are sinning seriously.
"Nobody judge you about sabbaths"
"Some consider some days all the same, everyone should be convinced in their own mind"
"Council of Jerusalem" What of the law.
"Did you receive the spirit by obeying the law, or by hearing with faith?"

You would think that instead of saying things like this, the NT should of have expicit command to keep the sabbath if you were to sin by not keeping it, it does not, on the contrary.

JSRG · 2025-11-07T23:24:03-0600

durangodawood said:
I don think so. Regarding "holding elections"

Time: Tues, or all week - for example
Place: County court houses, or online, etc
Manner: hand counted paper ballots, or various machines, etc

How elections get held is a different question than what things exactly you are voting on. In this case, the thing you are voting for is a representative in congress. Discretion over the mechanics of holding elections should not allow states (nor the congress) to degrade the whole concept of representation.

It is a bit confusing to me as to what you are trying to argue. I pointed out how congress has the ability to set its own rules for House and Senate elections, overturning those of states. You seem to be arguing they can't? Except, once again, as the Constitution says:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So Congress can overrule them, and it has on various occasions (usually more in the form of establishing general requirements rather than micro-managing things).

Or perhaps you are trying to claim that even states can't decide things like congressional districts? But it's obvious that's included, because states have been doing that since the day the Constitution was ratified. The idea that states don't have the ability to set their districts doesn't make sense, that's obviously include in "manner" and is what every state has done since it started holding House elections.

Actually, the requirement of single-member districts is a requirement by Congress, most recently reiterated I believe in the 1970 Uniform Congressional District Act. I think they should get rid of it, which would allow states to experiment with things like multi-member districts or even proportional representation, but for now it is still the law and was an example of how these things can be set by congress.

GodAndChocolateVanilla · 2025-11-07T23:21:02-0600

But it still hurts sometimes when I think about that time.

FireDragon76 · 2025-11-07T23:19:32-0600

Reading over this thread... no, I don't think you are all that wierd. I think American society is individualistic, isolated, and paranoid ("stranger danger", the one thing you can't talk about rationally with broad segments of American society).

Inhocsigno · 2025-11-07T23:10:17-0600

Greetings Cecile,
Quite well said! This is indeed one of the defining drives that draws so many of us to missionary work. It's a connecting thread that links us back to our forebear ministries from thousands of years ago. Continuing to preach and spread the joy of the Good News. It's an extra joy to do so in a community of like-minded souls with the same enthusiasm.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-07T23:08:13-0600

rjs330 said:
If he overstayed, whats the problem with him being picked up? Why is this bad?

Everything ICE does is bad. Enforcing the law is bad. (According to some)

BCP1928 · 2025-11-07T23:04:39-0600

BPPLEE said:
Poor people used to buy their groceries from little Mom and Pop stores in their communities. They paid higher prices but the stores were close by and most gave them credit and let them have charge accounts.
Walmart put most of those types of stores out of business about 30 years ago . There were a lot of items like OTC medicine and health and beauty aids that Walmart sold below cost to attract shoppers. Now they charge what they want.

Once upon a time and still in most countries there would be little fruit and vegetable stands popping up in what we now call "food deserts." When I was a kid ('40s and '50s) we bought our vegetables from a man who came around with a horse and wagon selling vegetables he grew himself. That kind of enterprise used to be called a "free market capitalism." Nowadays the only street business with enough cash flow to justify the risk of arrest is drugs. On the other hand, my son lives in the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland which is controlled by the Sureños so street businesses flourish under their protection. The street food is fantastic, you can pick up a dinner for four for about ten bucks.

It's what Walmart and similar stores are doing that's now called "free enterprise" and the street businesses, the mom and pop storekeepers and other small-scale enterpreneurs are "socialists."

Bradskii · 2025-11-07T23:02:44-0600

Bradskii said:
That's just got to be the deal breaker. If the GOP want to see Trump's polling fall even further than it is now then all they have to do is reject the offer.

Well, that went south as soon as I posted that. From here: Republicans reject Democrats’ proposal to end longest shutdown in US history

'John Thune, the Senate majority leader, was unmoved by the offer...'

And they turned it down.

GodDoesListen55 · 2025-11-07T23:00:05-0600

GodAndChocolateVanilla said:
Praying for you @GodDoesListen55!! [Hugs]

Thanks so much!

Zceptre · 2025-11-07T22:59:02-0600

peaceful-forest said:
I have a family member that is going through some trouble. He is in his 20s, has money problems, smokes marijuana, and is expecting a baby with his girlfriend.

I have thought about buying this family member a Bible, but I do not know which one to buy him. I believe his current problems are happening and God is allowing them so that this family member will turn to Christ for salvation.

What recommendations do you all have?

Thanks.

I'm a bit late on this, but everyone has an opinion right..

King James Version is high level English, so unless they are extra-gifted with literature this is not good for fast comprehension of the intended meaning of the text.

I personally feel the Berean Standard Bible and English Standard Version are two good translations that are on the more extremely high level accuracy to original text and its meaning, aside from very deep technical studies. They are also incredibly easy to understand.

If I were to suggest particular books to a younger person or new believer, shorter is better and Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Galatians, and 1st John are slam full of the majority of major concepts a person needs to see the truth. The Gospels of course, are a given, especially the book of John, but are longer reading than the first five listed.

Romans is also upheld by majority of scholars to be the most profound book in the Bible, and most impacting if read consistently. I never leave it out if someone asks what to read, it is usually first on the list or the one I recommend if they want to master a single book.

FireDragon76 · 2025-11-07T22:58:01-0600

Chesterton said:
Oi vey, any Christian who thinks God's covenant was a real estate transaction seriously misunderstands their faith.

Dispensationalism, and the associated Christian Zionism, owe alot to 19th century British fundamentalist biblicism. Alot of early British Zionists wanted to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine because they thought it would lead support to fulfillment of biblical prophecies. It has nothing directly to do with salvation as traditionally understood, therefore it shouldn't be something that is demanded of anyone to believe in as an article of the faith.

Aldebaran · 2025-11-07T22:56:45-0600

Say it aint so said:
I guess you can't.

Then you tell me in your own opinion--how many federal workers should go without paychecks, and for how long? How many flights need to be cancelled due to the shutdown making it more dangerous to fly? How many people is it worth going hungry?
All just to give the democrats some political leverage?

Servus · 2025-11-07T22:48:36-0600

A "wolf in sheep's clothing" is someone who appears harmless, innocent, or friendly but is actually deceitful or dangerous. This idiom describes a person who hides their true, harmful intentions behind a guise of trust and good behavior.

A2SG · 2025-11-07T22:37:00-0600

The Barbarian said:
I think Trump put his finger on the problem.
"If you let everyone vote, no republican would ever be elected again."

That's an exaggeration, but there's some truth in it. Without Gerrymandering, republicans would be in a rough place. However, as probison wrote, there's plenty of support among Americans for ending this corrupt practice:

Large majorities of Americans say gerrymandering is a major problem, unfair, and should be illegal

Large majorities of Americans say gerrymandering is a major problem, unfair, and should be illegal | YouGov

Less Republicans than Democrats oppose gerrymandering, though Democrats are more willing to use tit-for-tat gerrymandering in response to Republican partisan gerrymandering.

today.yougov.com

Supreme Court has endorsed corruption, but Congress could pass a law prohibiting it.

I would fully support such legislation....but, if gerrymandering is perfectly legal, and Texas is going to do it to favor the GOP, I see no problem with California or any other state doing the same thing. What's good for the goose and all that.

-- A2SG, how dare democrats do what republicans are already doing!!

A2SG · 2025-11-07T22:31:08-0600

Desk trauma said:
Now on top of my prescription going down 1000% in price I am also going to loose close to 200% of my body weight by this time next year:

Dr. Oz made a stunning estimate after Trump’s obesity drug deals: ’135 billion’ pounds
Oz initially stated that those agreements could help Americans lose a collective 125 million pounds by the 2026 midterms. He later adjusted that number – by a staggering amount.

“We thought it was 125 million pounds,” Oz said. “Mr. President, our estimate, based on the company numbers as well, is that Americans will lose 135 billion pounds by the midterms.”

Yeah, well, that kind of thing can happen when people are no longer able to afford to eat.

-- A2SG, but we'll have the best, most greatest economy EVER.....

Amo2 · 2025-11-07T22:30:27-0600

The Liturgist said:
On the contrary, soul sleep is a novel interpretation which was unknown in the early church and which is contradicted by the words of our Lord to the Good Thief on the Cross.

Soul sleep is not found anywhere in scripture. I don't know who believed it if anyone ever did. Rather again I think it was a name someone made up and sarcastically applied to those who believe in the sleep of the dead. Wikipedia suggests it was John Calvin. Scripture itself refers to the dead as sleeping many times over. When someone dies, the soul dies, as all the living are living souls. There is no soul sleep. There are living souls, and souls which have died and are therefore no more. The Bible never speaks of soul sleep or immortal souls, these are extra biblical terms. It speaks of living souls, and souls dying. The dead are referred to as asleep, because the sleeping eventually wake up, which is what the resurrection is all about.

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Luk 8:51 And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. 52 And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. 53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. 54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. 55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

Jhn 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

As far as the thief on the cross goes, a misplaced comma makes a big difference. If it is before the word today it means both Christ and the thief would be in paradise that day, if after, it would simply be a promise that the thief would be in paradise with Jesus when all the rest of us are as well. The problem with it meaning that Christ and the thief would be in paradise the day of their crucifixions is that our Lord did not go to paradise that day. As other scriptures testify.

Jhn 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Perhaps, if we wish to continue this discussion, I will start another topic on the history of the term or belief in soul sleep. For however long that might last, as well as this topic, since so many topics get censored and locked down on these boards.

Carl Emerson · 2025-11-07T22:26:03-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
If you are looking for the popular vote, you will have it.

If looking for God’s Truth Psa119:151, you might need to keep digging and prayerfully study more and realize that it doesn’t say we do not need to keep the 4th commandment anywhere in this passage, it was written decades after the Cross, Jesus would have to die all over again to make a change to His covenant. He already promised He would not alter His words Psa89:34 Mat5:18 God tells us what we need to know from His own mouth, but the same warning in Hebrews 4, still continues on. Heb 4:6-7 Heb3:7-13 Psa95:7-13 Heb4:11

Guess all gets sorted out soon enough.

The minority are not always right...

Derf · 2025-11-07T22:20:10-0600

CoreyD said:
Do you look at Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 5:2 in the same way... or Genesis 2:22 and Genesis 2:23?

Yes.

CoreyD said:
There are also places in the Bible which are mentioned by name, before being given a name.
This is because what we are reading is a narration - a historical record being penned by someone with all of that information.

I don't think any of that contradicts my assertion.

CoreyD said:
The writer is not going to write, "In the beginning God created nothingness (I'll get to why I used this), and rock."
The writer will use the term he knows he is referring to. He will write earth, because he knows what it is he is talking about.
In the same way, the writer isn't going to write.... "he Lord God fashioned something from the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

It's a narration.
The thing God fashioned from the rib was named woman after, but the narrator uses the term, before the name is given.
The solid structure God created was named earth after, but the narrator uses the term, before the name is given.

Yes, but the narrator is being consistent, usually (I'll give a counter example in a moment).
For instance, When Adam called his new helper "Woman", it wasn't talking about a different helper than that which was identified as "Woman" prior. Both are the same person. Same thing about Adam/Mankind. There wasn't a different species in Gen 1:27 as here:
[Gen 5:2 KJV] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So it was with Heaven(s) and Earth. The narrator, as you say, already knew the subject, and knew the names, but he noted where the names came from (God) after He created each. So what you've written here confirms what I was saying.

CoreyD said:
We do the same today when writing stories.

I hope we do agree it was the light on the earth.

Yes, but not necessarily only on earth, right? And if the source was only from a point away from earth (the sun), it would already have light separated from darkness, by the earth, unless the earth wasn't already formed and opaque (not void).

CoreyD said:
I'll surely do that, but give me a moment.

I appreciate you trying to do so.
Could you quote Genesis 1:1, so that we see what's actually written.

Sure, if that helps:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

CoreyD said:
Do you see the word light there, or the heavens and earth?
So going by what is written in the passage, what came first?

But we don't read scripture as if a single passage is alone. You talk about this later when you mention "context"

CoreyD said:
Noted. Thanks.

That's an interesting answer.
I thought you might see what is mentioned at Deuteronomy 4:19.

It mentions both the space and the things that space contains.

CoreyD said:
So, am I to understand that you believe empty space is the heavens referred to in the creation account of Genesis?
What is space, and how did that blackness impress David? Psalm 8:3

I don't believe I said "empty space". Neither did David. But David didn't say "stars and planets and galaxies", he said "Heavens" and "Firmament". If I give you a basket of fruit, when you write me a thank you, you might say, "Thanks for the basket", and I will understand you also mean the fruit that was in it. That's context.

CoreyD said:
When you read the phrase such as mentioned at Isaiah 57:16 and Jeremiah 32:19, do you just see empty space and mud?

Eh? No. Remember that I didn't say "empty" on purpose.

CoreyD said:
What would you say Psalm 102:25, 26 is referring to?

The thing that holds the earth above the water and sky and space and what they contain.

CoreyD said:
Not if one understands narration, and how writers utilizes it.
There's something else that's important to understand when reading something one has not written. Context.
A word or expression used in one place, can convey something else other than what's written in another place, though the word or expression is the same.

Yes, We get an example of that with the word "Day". It is used in the first two chapters of Genesis for daylight, for a single rotation of the earth (evening and morning) and for a six day period. Perhaps, in Ch 3, it even means a 1000 year period.

And that could be confusing to the reader. But the first verse doesn't say, "In the beginning God made the Day and the Night." It wasn't the focus of the passage. The Heavens and Earth were. The creation story (first version) is bracketed by these verses:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And backed up by Exodus 20:11.

CoreyD said:
For example, heaven, as used in Genesis 1:8 (God called the [i]expanse “heaven.”) is not the same as heavens at Genesis 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20.

It's not? The same word is used, except where a determiner is added (as in "the heavens" vs "heavens"). This is why I was adding the "(s)" at the end of heaven, because it is translated differently, even though the word is always plural in Hebrew.

CoreyD said:
This is why understanding the Bible requires more than just reading, but requires studying what one reads.

Agreed.

CoreyD said:
A person, for example, would just finish reading Genesis 1:8, and go on to read subsequent verses, and it would not dawn on them that if the expanse is called heaven, then it's a heaven, of the heavens.

People think a lot of different things about it when they read it.

CoreyD said:
In other words, the expanse, is the atmospheric heaven (or sky - where birds, planes, and stratospheric aircrafts fly), within the heavens that go all the way into space.... as far as that goes.

Right. Which is exactly what the word conveys in Vs 1

CoreyD said:
Fly to the Edge of Space
Edge of Space Jet Flight
Stratoplanes: The aircraft that will fly at the edge of space
Robotic spaceplane flies to edge of space

Heavens used in the context of Deuteronomy 10:14 also differ.
We want to study what we read, otherwise confusion, will be our dilemma.
So, yes, the heavens existed before heaven, and earth already existed before it reared up out of the water.

Did it? Remember that the firmament where God put the stars started when the waters (on earth, as you would say) were separated. THEN God put stars and Sun and Moon in that firmament called Heaven(s). Later He put birds in it. That's why we don't want to lose the "s". Paul talks about being caught up to the "third heaven", which would no doubt be higher than the sky (heaven 1) and the stars (heaven 2).

CoreyD said:
AI does a fairly good job on scenes.

Gregory Thompson · 2025-11-07T22:11:34-0600

Delvianna said:
That in itself has more implications.
1) Women are excluded from being first fruits
2) It excludes married men
3) It insinuates sex with women (even in marriage) is defilement and we know that's not the case because God created sex and literally gave the command TO multiply.
This could be taken symbolically since religion is sometimes depicted as a woman. So essentially, defiled with false religion.

It's one of those verses that only make sense to those it is written for.

Re-reading the verse in an inclusionary light would invoke one of the curses at the end of the book, so I wouldn't recommend it.

Delvianna said:
What do you mean manifestation?

The new testament fulfills what the old testament proclaimed. Manifestation meaning the new testament fulfillment of the old concept.

The old testament was a shadow of the things to come, the body casting said shadow is the manifestation. Much like how the elements of the temple all pointed to Christ.

A New Dawn · 2025-11-07T21:49:06-0600

Ain't Zwinglian said:
The OT messiah didn't necessarily mean faith in specifically Christ's death and resurrection. Jesus predicted three times to his disciples his death and resurrection and yet they didn't believe.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
So the question is asked again: Trusting in Christ's death and resurrection is required by all for eternal life. Does this mean all persons who died before Christ's death and resurrection are thrown in the lake of fire?

Can you give a scriptural reference that says we must believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection in order to be saved? We are saved by faith through grace that He is the Son of God who has come to save us from our sins (which he accomplishes by His death and resurrection) but it isn’t the process that saves us, it is Christ.

Lots of people are saved without having any theological knowledge, because they put their faith in Christ.

New Posts

New Posts

Large majorities of Americans say gerrymandering is a major problem, unfair, and should be illegal ​

Dr. Oz made a stunning estimate after Trump’s obesity drug deals: ’135 billion’ pounds​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Large majorities of Americans say gerrymandering is a major problem, unfair, and should be illegal

Dr. Oz made a stunning estimate after Trump’s obesity drug deals: ’135 billion’ pounds