Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security
- By fhansen
- General Theology
- 310 Replies
Paul knew well that he could not identify any specific person as being delfintivel;y numbered among the elect. In Phil 3 He even said that he had not yet attained to the ressurection but was strivng towards that end.I’m disappointed that you so easily went askew here. My question to you was who was us and all you had to do was look at who is Paul taking to. Here let’s look.
“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus:”
Ephesians 1:1 NASB2020
His words are directed at the saints who are at Ephesus. The Greek word here is hagios. I‘m sure Paul is not talking about spiritual beings with wings, right?
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, T o the saints who are at Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, T o the saints who are at Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesusbible.com
Saints- ἅγιος hágios, hag'-ee-os; from ἅγος hágos (an awful thing) (compare G53, H2282); sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):—(most) holy (one, thing), saint.
Look at the definition of hagios. These are morally blameless and consecrated human beings which are those with saving faith.
We think His burden is light. You speak as if it's non-existent. And our's isn't faith plus works of the law. It's faith plus good fruit, works of grace, good works that we were created in Chrsit Jesus to do, that God prepared in advance, works that are done not out of a sense of ovbligation but out of the love that's been poured into our hearts Rom 5:5. "...faith working though love" Gal 5:6
Depends on what you mean. Often love can be a hard chocie, involving self-sacrifice. And God's after more than just natural love, of course, but after a love that only he can produce in us.
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:46-48
Getting back to the last part of Matt 5 quoted above: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
If we're not on that road, that Way, that "jourrney to perfection" as it's been called; if we aren't closer to perfection, perfection in love to put it best, by virtue of our encounter and union with God than we were say, 5 or 10 years ago, then we should really question whether or not we're one of His.
Upvote
0
.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By sjastro
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 505 Replies
Let me be perfectly candid, you either have an appalling lack of basic comprehension skills or disrespect posters by ignoring their comments and turning them into fabrications for you to criticize.Ok fair enough. At least this is acknowledging that there is a difference in the signatures and that copper saws could not have produced this. Some if not many don't even propose that these signatures may be modern marks. They blindly adhere that no matter how the signatures look they were made by primitive tools and manpower.
But still generally this arguement is fallacious in that it applies a braod cover that because there has been some damage that therefore the specific examples are the result of that modern damage. I and many others are not convinced.
You are agreeing with others that the signatures look modern. Its now a case of seeing whether these specific examples are actually caused by modern damage or tech.
One logical arguement though not specifically applied is that if we look at all these cuts including the finished works in the clear and straight lines of blocks laid and boxes made we begin to see these modern signatures everywhere. Which sort of lends support that this is not just later modern tech but was built into the works themselves.
For example the first exampple showing the flat and sharp cut at the top of the basalt block seems to match the sharp and flat cuts in the examples I gave into the rocks. If you times this by all the sharp, flat and straight lines sometimes to machine tech levels within 1,000th of an inch. You begin to build a case that this kind of signature is found in many places.
The precision cuts on the huge granite boxes at the Serapeum in Saqqara. Up to 100 tons of black granite with 10 foot long finely cut edges that are paralelle and 90 degree to all points within 1,000s of an inch. This reeks of modern levels of tech in cutting.
Which then puts into perspective any open cut we see like the original example of the basalt as being common feature of works from this time. This would be a natural and logical conclusion if seeing so many examples that look like the signatures of modern tech. Just as you concluded the example I gave was from modern tech.
Good this is the kind of investigation that can determine what caused the signatures and I am not disagreeing. In fact its because this approach has been taken that I think its worth persuing a little longer as it may help make my point about how we assume ancient knowledge to be primitive and that signatures that are modern looking are assumed to be just that and made later.
If we can show that these same signatures are found in many places in the earliest dynasties that appear like modern signatures then the idea of these precision machine like signatures being a later copy is proven wrong. Or at least brought into question.
As I mentioned many of these works themselves contain modern signatures. The same logic should apply. If we find the same sharp, straight, clean, and geometrically aligned signatures that would usually be achieved by modern tech then this is more evidence.
If it walks like a duck then chances are its a duck and not manpower and primitive tools mimicking modern tech. Like they just happened to end up with the exact signatures of what we would normally call modern tech but blindly pounding, cutting and rubbing. If it mimicks modern tech then its caused by something equivelant to modern tech.
Ok so see how even such a small miscommunication can lead to misunderstandings. I did not know you thought the examples I gave could have been modern forgeries. Now we know and can deal with that and perhaps move on.
This I think is part of nutting out what is what. You seem to think I am not willing when I think its more about misunderstanding each other. Once we can establish a common ground then we can go from there as we have done and are doing.
How did the saw pass through the rock when its in a fixed position surrounded by rocks. If you noptice the rock with 3 cuts they are very straight and deep and stop suddenly. They don't pass all the way through. Yet the top of the cut is not deep which would be expected if a saw cut at an accute angle to go that far down the rock face.
In other words the cut is long and more or less the same depth from start to finish as though cut from above and into the rock. The other cut that goes across the rock but stops a mere inch from going right through and is very thin and has sharp unbroken or abrased edges. This looks like a classic machine cut.
View attachment 369366
Besides this as I said there are many signatures that look like machine cuts that lend support that these are more likely done with similar methods. The slab at Abu Sire I linked has an arc cut with a sharp thin lip that could not have been made by a copper saw nor was rubbed to look like an arc. It is the signature left from whatever cut into it.
Or this cut found on one of the large pink granite reliefs at Karnak Temple which in no way could be caused by a copper saw and abrasion as its so thin and sharp and even has a slight curve as though a jigsaw slightly goes off line.
View attachment 369367
Or this one from the same site which is not a crack but shows how fine some of these cuts are. I don't think they roughly cut granite and then spend months and years sanding the joints to paper thin perfection. Something has almost precisely cut this block on block.
Like I said when you begin to look these signatures are everywhere and cannot all be the result of the traditional tools or modern forgeries.
View attachment 369369
Or this one. What do you think cause this. These cuts as though a thin layer has been shaved off are all over boxes in the pyramids. This one is from the Kings chamber in the Giza pyramid.
They also seem to match the many examples of what also looks like thin and sharpe edged cuts on other works like the curved slab at Abu Sir with the thin sharp arc cut and the first example I showed of the basalt pavers.
These signatures are everywhere once you open up to the possibility. Just like you recognised that the example I gave looked modern and out of place. So do these with the same logic and it seems theres some at least that cannot have been modern forgeries as they are built into the artifact itself as part of its creation.
All I am doing is showing the out of place signatures. I am not proposing any method.
View attachment 369371 View attachment 369372
There is evidence, too, in the Cairo Museum of clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi" lids. The Cairo Museum contains enough evidence that, when properly analyzed, will prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the ancient Egyptians used highly sophisticated manufacturing methods.
Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt
Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt - Spirit & Stone
www.theglobaleducationproject.org
Who says they are later though. First you suggested a general possibility that there are some modern reworkings. Now your claiming this applies to the specific examples for which you have offered no evidence that they are actually modern forgeries.
That seems illogical as it would also follow that it debunks any specific truth claim because of the fact there are more than one possibility. If this is what your aim was then we agree.
Because that is what I was also doing. That this has been made into some conspiracy for the simple fact of proposing other possibilities was not my doing. BUt one injected into this thread from the start by others who quickly jumped to claims that this was all conspiracy, aliens, about God ect.
I am going to largely ignore your long rambling post and hopefully get through your thick skull the points I made instead of wasting my time responding to your nonsensical interpretations, irrespective of whether they are deliberate or unintentional.
Here are two images again for your reference.
What do you immediately notice, unless you are completely deluded comparing the grooves in each image is like comparing chalk and cheese.
If the groove formation in both images is supposed to be contemporary you would expect either abrasion cutting using copper and grit or your mysterious unknown technology.
They are clearly not the same and given the site has long history after the 4th dynasty of rock quarrying and site damage up to the 20th century, the grooves in the first image were formed long after the 4th dynasty when steel became sufficiently hard to cut through granite without abrasives which is from the 18th century. This explains why the grooves are deeper and sharper the result of a quarrying technique known as plug and feather as described in post #180.
This has absolutely nothing to do with your nonsense involving forgeries.
Then there is your disbelief of how the groove in the second image was produced given the neighbouring blocks were in the way preventing the use of a saw.
Good grief was my explanation too complicated for your understanding, the block was worked on before it was assembled in place. Clearly this work was incomplete as the groove serves no useful purpose so the block was used as part of the general construction.
Don’t bother responding if you going to serve up another nonsensical rambling post.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
6,000 Years?
- By Platte
- Creation & Theistic Evolution
- 1617 Replies
God saw the light he created in day 1 and that’s all I need to know.
The Sabbath DaySo you're stuck with contriving a sun-before-the-sun to supply your evenings and morrnings. Are there any other major additions to your 6-86,400-second-day Creation?
Oh, as for your dislike of the "1000 year day" for God, the point wasn't to present a mathematical formulad to convert a solar day to a God Day, it was to convey the truth that God isn't bound by time as we are. But you probably don't believe that,either.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
