New Posts

NxNW · 2025-11-19T19:35:04-0600

eleos1954 said:
Yes ... our elections should be a high priority and everything possible should be put in place to ward off "interference" and so far that has not been done. Ending mail in voting and requiring proper ID would help.

Neither would help.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-11-19T19:34:21-0600

WordSword said:
We are "walking as He walked" (1Jo 2:6), when we are about the Father's business (Luk 2:49).

According to the Scriptures, we walk as He walked when we follow in His example that He set forth for us 1John2:6 1 Peter 2:21-22 Heb4:15. So how did Jesus live what did He teach this is the faith we are to have, not just faith in Jesus, but the faith of Jesus Rev14:12

A Devil's Advocate · 2025-11-19T19:33:18-0600

Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy. If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God. By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

So why the tree of knowledge then?

A relationship requires the freedom to either accept or to refuse. For such a choice to be realized requires what we understand as freewill. Freewill, at it's very essence, is the freedom to deny God, to deny our very creator. It is what enables our moral agency, the capacity to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and to act accordingly. So naturally, in order to have freewill, one must posses the knowledge of good and evil. This is knowledge that neither Adam or Eve had prior to the fall, Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22.

For God to establish the possibility of a relationship means allowing man freewill. To allow man freewill means allowing man the knowledge of good and evil. However, this comes at a cost. God is Just by nature and cannot act contrary to His nature. This means any evil that is committed must be punished. The punishment for evil is spiritual death, separation from God. This, of course, creates a dilemma. How does God allow man freewill while upholding His Divine justice?

Christ Jesus!

God resolves this dilemma through Jesus. God takes upon Himself the punishment for sin in the person of Jesus. Through His sacrifice, mankind is forgiven making it possible to enter into a relationship with God.

It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil. God Is good, but how are you to know good if you don't know it's opposite? You need it's opposite from which to distinguish what is good. How were Adam and Eve to know God wasn't evil, or that the serpent wasn't good? Surely, had Eve known the serpent wasn't good, she wouldn't have listened to him. Adan and Eve had no way of recognizing the goodness of God until they experienced the absence of God, until they experienced evil.

Sin was no accident. It was necessary so that the goodness of God could be known. Likewise, the crucifixion was also a part of God's divine plan. It was necessary in order to deal with the penalty for the sin that God had to allow. It was all predestined, as capture beautifully by Paul in Eph 1:4-10.

Now, don't misunderstand... God does not will sin! Nor does He take pleasure in it. But in His infinite wisdom, He knew that allowing sin would create the context in which humanity could experience His goodness, grace, and love. The fall wasn't a breakdown in God's plan, it was the very road in which that plan would be fulfilled.

concretecamper · 2025-11-19T19:32:27-0600

2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

The Scriptures Timothy knew from his infancy ( most likely before Christ was crucified ) is the Tanakh. Paul COULD NOT be refer to the Bible.

CLEEB · 2025-11-19T19:31:34-0600

BelieveItOarKnot said:
My how the errors in choices creep in.

Adam received “the command” from God, the quite entirely infamous “do not eat OR ELSE” command that we apparently all fell under.

Eve was not yet separated and formed from Adam. But Eve apparently had heard the command. How so?

Gen. 3:
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So we have 3 basic possibilities where this repeating of the command from God came from. We have no record of God repeating it to Eve. She may have had an inert or inner understanding of the command, being “within” Adam at the time, (God called them BOTH Adam on the day they were created-Gen. 5) OR the most likely source, Adam himself.

In any case Eve clearly got the command wrong, adding to it the statement that they may not “touch it.” God never said that. In fact they were meant to tend to the Garden and presumably every tree therein, inclusive of the infamous tree of knowledge of good/evil. An error was already in place and an unknown violation of God's Intentions for them, again most likely from the recount of Adam of that command, which would essentially prove his own fault in listening or retelling or tending the Garden. Or Eve made up the error herself, again showing error was in her own mind. In any case the command was mangled in her own mind and statements in stating the command to the serpent. She basically erred to the serpent and of course the serpent struck from there, getting her to consider making a “MORAL CHOICE.” Perhaps not even cognizant of the fact that she already erred.

So Eve starts her decision making with a built in fault. An error in recounting the exact command, to not “touch” the tree.

And here is where her decision making starts, all quite in line with making a good moral decision for herself:

Gen. 3:
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

A classic setup for making a moral choice.

Good/Pleasant/Wise. What could possibly go wrong?

What’s wrong with the picture is that we fail to see that lawlessness was already at work within both Adam, who never even bothered to correct Eve’s misstatement of the command, and Eve, showing that LUST, LUST and PRIDE was already within her, referring to this pattern stated by John in:

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Basically the things of the Father were NOT in Eve, but things of the world: good for food, pleasant to the eyes, the pride of being wise. All seemingly legitimate on the surface using the world’s decision making moral choice methods.

I honestly would hardly find fault in the decision making process, that we all employ daily. In many ways this decision making course is required to even survive. We have to eat. We like to eat things that please our eyes and we certainly are not rewarded for making foolish decisions.

But you see none of these observations are even accurate. What is accurate is that the package of Adam and Eve came PREPACKAGED with FAULTS.

Paul outlined this clearly in 1 Cor. 15:42-46 showing us exactly the conditions that
Adam and “all” natural people are planted in. These 3 things also correlate to Eve’s built in flaws:

Planted in corruption
Planted in dishonor
Planted in weakness

Is there supposed to be some surprise if outcome of making decisions with those pre-existing conditions is not and can never be moral? We make every decision from those planted conditions. Basically being seeded in dung, within the darkness of earth, our own dust body.

And lets not ignore what really happened to both Adam and Eve. Where the Word is sown, Satan comes immediately in our hearts to STEAL, to SIN in our own hearts via THEFT.

Obviously both Adam and Eve were stolen from within.

I believe the tempter was already at work within them both from the moment they first heard the Words of God. Yet hardly a one of us can see it, because we too have been stolen from.

And in this state we can’t even be honest with ourselves about it.

Instead we’ll claim that we justify ourselves by making good moral decisions, even with the hard line fact of EVIL CHOICES WITHIN TO CHOOSE FROM.

Remember these Words from Jesus: EVIL COMES FROM WITHIN.

It’s not optional, so let’s not try to pull Jesus’ Leg about it claiming we’re legally obedient and making good moral cnoices. Evil thoughts defile us all, period.

Mark 7:21-23

You have to love an HONEST BOOK. And of course not everything is as it appears on the surface, or in the mirror

How could Adam or Eve have any concept of what good and evil is prior to eating the fruit that would give them that knowledge ? The only thing Adam knew was that GOD told him not to eat from the forbidden tree and I would think he passed the information on to Eve. Before eating the forbidden fruit neither one knew what good and evil was. They didn’t even know they were naked until afterwards. Even though Eve ate the fruit first the eyes of both were only opened after Adam ate. When GOD first created Adam and Eve they were innocent they could not have fallen from grace because they were never under grace, there was no need for grace as there was no sin. Sin only entered the world after they sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. Adam didn’t fall from grace he failed to chose the other tree , that of life instead, which would have given him GODS spirit as well as the knowledge of the truth without having ever sinned. The man had to have a free will choice to obey GOD or not. This is one reason why the two trees were in the garden and Satan allowed to have access to Adam and Eve. GOD , being omniscient, knew Adam would sin and that is why Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The problem with humanity now is a defiled human spirit and when unconverted children of the devil. Christ was sent to remedy this situation by providing an ultimate sacrifice for sin to be proportioned out in three different times; now, the millennium and the second resurrection. The three measures of meal until the whole is leavened. This is why Jesus is called the second Adam who always did the will of his FATHER. Adam harkened to the voice of his wife instead of his GOD thus indicating he loved his wife more than his GOD. In the story of the events of the garden of Eden is the message of the gospel.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-19T19:30:54-0600

NxNW said:
I don't think Bill Clinton has assaulted anyone.

Paula Jones accuses Bill Clinton of sexual harassment | May 6, 1994 | HISTORY

Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state clerk, files suit against President Bill Clinton in the federal court in Little ...

www.history.com

lismore · 2025-11-19T19:29:42-0600

Vanellus said:
It's the evidence (or lack of it) that counts

Not only did the beasts in the proscribed terrorist group Hamas attack women, they sexually assaulted men too:

Ex-hostage Guy Gilboa-Dalal reveals he was sexually abused | The Jerusalem Post

"He let me shower, and when I finished, he dragged me out of there and didn't let me put on my clothes," said former hostage Guy Gilboa Dalal in recent testimony about the abuse he suffered in Gaza.

www.jpost.com

Hamas are proscribed for a reason, they're animals.

NxNW · 2025-11-19T19:27:42-0600

Hentenza said:
No. Is the left ok with illegal immigration?

No, but fortunately it hasn't been a problem for years now, since Trump built the wall and Mexico paid for it.

Servus · 2025-11-19T19:21:27-0600

rambot said:
I tend to think of rapists who brag about assaulting women and make fun of handicapped people as ethically compromised. Especially if they also try to catch glimpses of teenagers changing backstage at beauty pagents before jetting off to hang out with his really GREAT friend who traffics teenagers. A preponderance of suggestive evidence when there are also direct accusations, is not something you can just "dismiss out of hand cause you don't like it".

And if a Democrat did those things, you would (rightfully) also say they were awful people.

That's memorized misleading dialog that gets repeated verbatim. As if people have let themselves be programmed.

RocksInMyHead · 2025-11-19T19:15:55-0600

Valletta said:
Have you considered smaller insurers?

Smaller insurers have a smaller risk pool by nature. Therefore, they must either be very choosy about who they accept (which is problematic for people with, say, pre-existing conditions) or charge a lot of money for their premiums because they lack the leverage to negotiate with providers and don't have a large pool of insured individuals to spread costs among. While they might be a good option for some people, they can't (and won't) insure everyone.

Valletta said:
Free competition is the key,

The problem is that health insurance (and healthcare in general) doesn't operate on free market principles. You can't shop around for the best price or highest-rated hospital when you're having a heart attack or you suddenly go into labor or you run over your foot with a lawnmower. On the insurance side of things, as I said, smaller companies have to cut coverage or limit access in order to compete on price with the giant conglomerates. While that may look like a "free market" at a glance, offering lesser coverage (e.g. a catastrophic coverage policy rather than full coverage) or blocking the guy who has a family history of colon cancer is not something that we should be aspiring to.

Realistically, if you have the principle that everyone should receive medical care if and when they need it, the only thing that makes sense is a single-payer, government-run system.

Valletta said:
Blacks Lives Matter, for example, can offer their members health care and share the cost between members. They can cap the salary of a CEO at $100,000 and put it in their bylaws that every employee must make at least half of the salary of the CEO in order to keep costs affordable for patients. Anyone can incorporate and offer those same salaries and go into health insurance only, with a goal of making health insurance affordable for everyone.

What's the incentive for that? The government has a good reason to want a healthy population, but a private corporation? Please. Moreover, it's far from simple to run such a company.

Valletta said:
A person should be able to CHOOSE insurance from companies other than the ones Obama and Pelosi decided to favor.

The ACA does not restrict what companies are permitted to participate in the marketplace. They must offer plans that meet certain standards (e.g. no rejecting people based on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime benefit caps, etc), but there's nothing that says that Joe & Mary's Family Insurance Co. can't list their plans on the marketplace. The main reason why you only see plans from the "big, fat, rich insurance companies" on the marketplace is because they have a huge risk pool, and thus can offer better rates for plans that meet the ACA standard. And people buying their plans on the marketplace are going to look at two seemingly identical plans and pick the one that costs $500 less per month.

Fervent · 2025-11-19T19:06:52-0600

Bradskii said:
You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.

Quote what I said.

Fervent · 2025-11-19T19:03:04-0600

Hentenza said:
Verse?

I had mainly 1 Corinthians 12 in mind

Hentenza said:
Brother I am going to disagree. Nowhere n scripture does it teach that there is no salvation outside of the church. There is no verse in scripture that teaches that. In fact salvation is only attained by faith in Christ.

Who can know the gospel without having first heard it from the church?

Hentenza said:
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭4‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.” | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.”

bible.com

Secondly, the CF statement of faith was initially designed to identify who could post where, not really to identify who was a Christian or not. A few years ago there used to be a lot more forums and many were for non conforming churches like the JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians, etc. Those that did not agree with the Nicene creed could only post in the non conforming church rooms. These days it merely used to determines who can post in Christian rooms vs non Christians rooms. I know this because I was part of the advisory team that developed CF statement of faith.

A restriction which was intended to limit posting in the Christians-only sections...to who, exactly?

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-19T18:58:32-0600

Some tidbits from the outvoted 5th Circuit judge

When a judge warns readers to “Fasten your seatbelts!” before a 104-page legal diatribe — best to buckle up.

[Judge Jerry] Smith, on the losing end of that 2-1 ruling, attacked the plaintiffs as tools of left-wing donors George and Alex Soros, who featured at least 17 times in the ruling.

While dissenting judges typically refer obliquely to the “majority” opinion, Smith’s relentlessly personal and withering opinion [used opinion author Judge] Brown’s name more than 360 times, often accompanied by colorful insults.

Smith lit into Brown as an “unskilled magician” who “prefers living in fantasyland.” Smith said Brown committed “pernicious judicial misbehavior” by racing to issue his opinion. Brown emphasized [this] was intended to allow Texas leaders to return to the state’s earlier congressional boundaries before a Dec. 8 deadline for candidates to declare their bids for Congress.

“Whether Judge Brown likes it, gravity exists,” Smith wrote.

Although judges typically couch their deliberations in a veil of secrecy, Smith revealed them in great detail, even quoting from the text of email exchanges with Brown as the ruling was being prepared.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-19T18:54:16-0600

I'm not all that concerned about "the Islam" factor of Mamdani.

If he was actually devout, then that may be some cause for concern, but given his political stances (both social and economic) he's clearly not a devout adherent to Islam.

In that debate between him, Cuomo, and that "Guardian Angel" wanna-be, he openly admitted to patronizing legal pot dispensaries, and his position on LGBTQ issues are pretty well-known, so clearly he's not that "strict".

Leaf473 · 2025-11-19T18:54:05-0600

Two people celebrating the Sabbath together in the Holy land. Then one travels west, the other travels east.

The one traveling west will celebrate about an hour later for each thousand miles they travel. The one traveling east, about an hour earlier.

When they meet up on the opposite side of the earth, they will be celebrating the Sabbath a day apart.

I love you all!

Lost4words · 2025-11-19T18:52:22-0600

keras said:
No. we will know soon enough.

As set out in Revelation 6:12-17, then many events, leading up to the glorious Return. in Rev 19:11.

A knee jerk reply totally lacking in scriptural or scientific support.

God does that, He commands the sun to send out a consuming fire to judge the peoples. Psalms 50:1-6

Your unintelligible comments and failure to prove what I point out from the Prophets- wrong, is your bad.

What you write is your very own bad interpretation of scripture. You read into it your own ideas Keras. And then, you dislike it when that is pointed out.

Valletta · 2025-11-19T18:49:41-0600

US Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida indicted on charges of stealing $5M in disaster funds

U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida has been indicted on charges accusing her of stealing $5 million in federal disaster funds and using some of the money to aid her 2021 campaign, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The Democrat is accused of stealing Federal Emergency...

www.yahoo.com

All that power and wealth that comes with being a member of Congress seems like it was not enough.

rebornfree · 2025-11-19T18:49:05-0600

We're praying in Church, for it not to become law, and I've written to my MP twice, urging him to vote against it. I know others have written too. There are some of us in England and Wales who see the dangers of it going ahead, including many medical personnel and disability groups.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-19T18:47:00-0600

Nancy Mace moves to force vote on censuring Cory Mills

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution to censure fellow Republican Rep. Cory Mills (Fla.) and remove him from committees Wednesday, listing allegations of harassment, assault, stolen valor and improper contracts by his arms sales company.

Mills has been at the center of numerous personal controversies this year. [stuff in posts #1 and #3]

Mace’s censure resolution references reporting in The Daytona Beach News-Journal questioning how and why he was awarded a Bronze Star, with two service members “disputing that Mills was involved in their rescue or provided live-saving care.”

And finally, Mace’s resolution notes Mills is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee after the Office of Congressional Conduct found that his companies “may have entered into, held, or enjoyed contracts with federal agencies while he was a Member of Congress in violation of House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”

St_Worm2 · 2025-11-19T18:38:58-0600

Pole Vault

CoreyD · 2025-11-19T18:38:48-0600

Zceptre said:
What I see is a person that doesn't like the particular kind of responses he would like to receive. Conversations are not mathematical equations and people are not machines that are supposed to spit out desired conclusions to situational input. The Bible says we are brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with and love each other. (John 13:35)

Why are you judging me, and are you not attacking the poster rather than addressing the post?
Is that how one is to be brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with, and love each other?

Zceptre said:
I gave a cordial response and meant well and I don't know why it bothers you but I can try to elaborate. I simply have encountered Fervent enough that I think he was trying to offer you insight based on his own experience and wisdom and in my opinion the response I alluded to was a good response, even if it wasn't acceptable according to your personal expectations.

Do you realize you are judging me... and wrongfully at that?
Did I tell you that your response bothers me, or did you get that from reading my heart?

Zceptre said:
So to expand on the simple statement, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6). God says in Jeremiah 29:13 that people will find Him when they seek Him with all their heart, and if God the Son is "truth" then seeking the truth leads one to finding Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is also the Word of God (John 1:1) and so to "engage with the truth" would be to interact with the Scriptures.

Okay, so to clarify... Which of the following 11 statements is incorrect, if any?
You believe...

When Jesus said, If you abide in my word, you will know the truth John 8:31, Jesus was saying, If you abide in my word, you will know me.
When Jesus said, But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing John 8:40, Jesus was saying, But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you me that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.
When Jesus said, But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me! Which of you can prove Me guilty of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me? John 8:45, 46, Jesus was saying, because I speak me, you do not believe Me! If I speak me, why do you not believe Me?
When Jesus said, Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth John 17:17, Jesus was saying, Sanctify them by me; Your word is me.
When Jesus said, But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:23, 24, Jesus was saying, the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in me, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in me.
When Jesus said, For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ John 1:17, Jesus was saying, For the Law was given through Moses; grace and me came through Jesus Christ.
When Jesus said, For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth. Everyone being of the truth hears My voice." John 18:37, Jesus was saying, For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to me. Everyone being of me hears My voice."
Romans 1:18 is saying The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress Jesus by their wickedness.
Romans 1:25 is saying They exchanged Jesus of God for a lie...
Galatians 2:5 is saying We did not give in to them for a moment, so that Jesus of the gospel would remain with you.
Ephesians 4:21 is saying Jesus is in Jesus...

Also, I have two questions.

At John 8:47, Jesus said, The one who is from God listens to God’s words. This is why you don’t listen, because you are not from God.
Did Jesus speak God's words? and what are these words... Are they words of truth, and did Jesus come to teach these?
At John 16:13, Jesus said, However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
The Spirit of truth will guide Jesus' followers into all truth. What is that truth?

Zceptre said:
If we are to be the Bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) then this whole ordeal is about a relationship. To have a relationship you have to meet and engage with the person in conversation, you have to learn of them, get to know them, and find out who they are. If Christ is the Word of God, and He is also the truth, then to get to know Him is to interact with the Scriptures.

In other words, you can't know the truth anymore than you know a person you haven't met if you haven't met the truth, or engaged with it personally. Just like you didn't know me at all before this encounter, people cannot know the truth until they interact with it, just like you would not have known me if you had not met and interacted with me on this forum. If someone had asked you about me before this conversation, the best response you would have is "I don't know who that is or if he even exists."

A person not knowing that Christ is the truth doesn't mean that Christ isn't the truth, it simply means that person is unaware of something, just like children are unaware of danger at times even if it is right next to them on the playground or a snake is laying in the grass hidden. The truth is in the world, but it does not mean people are aware of it and they can't know it is the truth until they experience it for themselves, just like you now have an experience with conversing with me and know I'm real. Just because you didn't know who I was before you met me, did not make me any less real and it also didn't give you a way to identify me. Only meeting me gives someone a way to identify the truth, otherwise they are still in the stage of needing to "seek" the truth (Jeremiah 29:13 - Matthew 7:7) because they haven't found it yet.

I'm saying here that Fervent's particular statement was a response to the OP. Fervent was trying to tell you that not everything he said was a direct response to the OP. He is trying to fill in dark areas around the core line of questioning and was trying to offer other insights that were brought up in the conversation. Responding to the OP is good, but when a conversation is being held by a group of people, the OP isn't addressed in every single statement, otherwise the subject would be extremely limited and confined and understanding is then lost and people cannot use analogies or examples. Fervent is a deep thinker and was simply telling you that he was adding to the conversation and trying to make it clear to you that those statements were not directly connected to the OP. They were indirectly connected being related to the subject and responses to other statements in the conversation.

Thank you for your explanation.

Zceptre said:
Sure.

This is the statement I'm referring to. He is saying "It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination."

In other words, you can't know who or what something is until you interact with it. You can't tell a court I'm a trustworthy person until you have met me and known me for some amount of time. You can't identify the truth, until you experience the truth, otherwise you are still searching and have not found it yet and simply "don't know," just like you didn't know me before this encounter with me.

I'm searching for a 30.10-carat very light pink diamond that Bill Gates hid, and is offering the value of it to the person that finds it.
Do I need to interact with it, to know what it is? I don't, do I.

A guy was found a map in a sunken ship. The map had an X, and a note "Buried Treasure".
Does the guy have to interact with the treasure, to know what it is? No.
He certainly does not have to interact with it to determine how to find it.

The scriptures, and Jesus tells persons that God offers them the truth, which leads to everlasting life.
The man that understands this to be the truth that Jesus was anointed to come to earth and teach, wants to find that truth.
Does he need to interact with Jesus, in order to search for, and find that truth?

Not at all, because Jesus went back to heaven nearly 2,000 years ago, leaving his followers with this command...

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19, 20

...and this prophecy...

This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

The man in search of the truth has a map - a guide to finding the truth.

The man that thinks Jesus is this truth... what is he looking for?

d taylor · 2025-11-19T18:38:36-0600

-

There are no other verses supporting Job 26:7 to be translated this way.

Hang which is the Hebrew word teleh
Means to hang, suspend, or support by actual contact. never to hang on nothing: thus, to give a few instances/examples

Genesis 40:19 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head from you and hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from you.”

Psalms 137:2 We hung our harps Upon the willows in the midst of it.

Ezekiel 15:3 Is wood taken from it to make any object? Or can men make a peg from it to hang any vessel on?

Job 26:7 using (supporteth the Earth upon fastenings (foundations) )." is supported by other areas of The Bible as a few times God states in The Bible, the earth is set upon foundations.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Job 38:6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,

Psalms 104:5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,

But the word belimeh wrongly translated "nothing" is the crucial word. Our translators appear to have derived it from the noun blee, signifying consumption or desolation, and the pronoun meh, who which what, but the meaning "nothing" drawn from these words, seems to be very far fetched. Hebrew is a very ancient language, to all probability the most ancient of any, and this being the only place in the Bible where the word belimeh occurs, it is, of course, difficult to test the meaning. I (David Wardlaw Scott) have myself, however, not the slightest doubt, that Parkhurst is right in deriving the noun belimeh from the verb belem, to confine, restrain, or hold in, so used in

Psalm 32:9 Do not be like the horse or like the mule, Which have no understanding, Which must be harnessed(belem) with bit and bridle, Else they will not come near you.

and that belimeh simply means "fastenings," or "supports," and this interpretation exactly agrees with what Godh asked Job a little farther on in

Job 38:6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone

So verses like Job 38:6 support Job 26:7 to be translated from the Hebrew as

"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings."

And not, hang on nothing, as there is no other verse supporting this "hang on nothing"

Douggg · 2025-11-19T18:36:17-0600

sovereigngrace said:
No one could surely dispute we are looking at an Israeli tree.

The text says olive tree, not Israeli tree.

PTW · 2025-11-19T18:35:39-0600

Johnny Test

New Posts

New Posts

Nancy Mace moves to force vote on censuring Cory Mills​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Nancy Mace moves to force vote on censuring Cory Mills