mourningdove~ said:

Yes. She lied, and lied, and lied.

In case you haven't yet seen this:

25 Lies Kamala Harris Told In Her Debate Against Trump

Here are 25 of the biggest falsehoods Kamala Harris told during her Tuesday night debate with Donald Trump.

thefederalist.com

Click to expand...

Thanks for the article.

Why am I not surprised?

SMH

Well duh.

Glory to God!

I wonder how many followers he had? I think the late "Pope" Michael had around 30 or less.

May God continue to bless and protect the people of Brazil

That's sounds really fascinating! I would love to go to the New England area at least once in my lifetime.

tonychanyt said:

Genesis 2:


LORD
יְהוָ֥ה (Yah·weh)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3068: LORD -- the proper name of the God of Israel

God
אֱלֹהִ֖ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

made
עֲשׂ֛וֹת (‘ă·śō·wṯ)
Verb - Qal - Infinitive construct
Strong's 6213: To do, make

The sequence <H3068 H430> (more precisely יהוה אלהים) appears 1157 times in the OT. It is one noun followed by another in apposition. This grammatical side-by-side formation refers to the same entity. Both words are in the absolute state, not the construct state. On Biblehub, 27 used "LORD God"; 2 "Lord God"; 2 "Yehweh God"; 3 "Jehovah God". None used "Lord of gods". Translating יהוה אלהים as "Lord of gods" would be wrong because it is not a genitive construct state. It is an apposition.

Click to expand...

'YHWH Elohim' semantically is a full combination of the proper name (YHWH) + title/function (Elohim).

It's the exact same construct as e.g. 'Yeshua Hamashiach' / 'Jesus Christ'.

The first word is the name/identity - the second word their title/function/position.

ValeriyK2022 said:

We do not intersect with them in any way, so I have never been interested in this issue before. Never in my life have I had the opportunity to not only talk to, but even see a representative of these churches. Also, I am not a clergyman and do not have a spiritual education. I am an ordinary parishioner of the UOC. If they are really Orthodox, then that is very good.

Click to expand...

Indeed, its a profound blessing, and I don’t think any live in the Ukraine, although there are some in Russia (Moscow, specifically), Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK, and eastern Turkey, Tur Abdin, used to be a major population center before the genocide in 1915 which they call the Sayfo (the Sword), and some Suriac Orthodox still live there, but they
experience constant danger.

HarleyER said:

I was just at a prayer meeting last night where we closed with the Doxology. Several weeks ago we recited the Nicene Creed during the church service.

I suppose the only thing spontaneous is when we cite the creeds, Lord's Prayer, and doxologies. There is order to the service, but it isn't like some of the more formalized liturgical services which might have a common book of prayers, common homilies, etc.

Click to expand...

Interesting! Thanks for answering

tonychanyt said:

The English noun "fish" can function as a collective singular. Similarly, Ex 7:


Brown-Driver-Briggs: דָּגָה> noun feminine fish … almost always collective.

Hebrew had collective singulars, e.g., a collective singular noun followed by a singular verb to denote a collection of objects.

On the other hand, Ge 1:


God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed

This was not an example of collective singular. The noun was plural in form. And then it broke the usual grammatical rule. It was followed by a singular verb. The noun and verb did not agree in number.

Now, the British English phrase "city have" is an example of a collective plural.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective singular?

No.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective plural?

No.

What was it then?

It was an unusual construct that broke the usual grammatical rule.

Click to expand...

Not knowing enough Hebrew I'll have to defer to your answer but I am suspicious of this because being familiar with the extensive nuances of language, it seems to me contrived to make this an "unusual construct" when it seems that an alternative is the collective singular for the verb.

Another angle to this is that the Hebrew language in scripture extends over centuries - over a millennium - and would not have remained static that long. Are there grammatical differences between paleo-Hebrew and, say, post-captivity (square-letter) Hebrew? I suppose that much of what is known of Hebrew is of the later Hebrew, not so much of paleo-Hebrew or "Phoenician". That makes me wonder.

chunkofcoal said:

That verse in context Paul is telling people they need to get along -
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
(Gal 5:13-15)

But James also said:
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
(Jas 2:8)

And Yeshua said:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
(Mat 7:12)

So, what are they teaching? How is what they are saying to be understood?

If you read your quote from Yeshua in context, notice He says "the second is like unto it" -
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Mat 22:37-40)

So, how is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" like unto "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"?

Click to expand...

You just reminded me of something I was to mention.

@visionary
1 John 4:20, 21
20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

Obeying the second commandment is required to obey the first.
We cannot obey the first, if we are not obeying the second.

Nithavela said:

I don't know if that's such a big change. In both stories, he was going vigilante against something he apparently thought was evil. In the first story, he helped in taking down a criminal, in the second story, he tried to kill a former president of the USA. Seems to me like a change in degrees of violence and social acceptance of the target instead of complete change.

(To be clear, I'm not condoning trying to shoot Trump. Just speculating on the mans deranged thought processes.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, it does sound like the man has changed his tactics, and became more violent between 1991 and 2024. I am curious what his religion is. Some religious fanatics like to commit violence it seems, regardless of religion or denomination.

All Praise, Thanks, Glory & Honor to Jesus Christ for ensuring that political leaders in India are kept Humble due to recent elections that have led to a parliament with larger share of seats won by the opposition parties:

Rxlx said:

Geology merely proves The Flood and the Upheavals of the Day of Peleg.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Archeology proved that one.

DennisF said:

What is the difference in meaning between (H7854 satan) and (H6862 tsar)? If H6862 is best rendered "adversary" what of H7854? Accuser?

Click to expand...

See Compare H6862-adversary and H7854-satan-adversary and follow up there

Ge 14:

20 Blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Click to expand...

your enemies
צָרֶ֖יךָ (ṣā·re·ḵā)
Noun - masculine plural construct | second person masculine singular
Strong's 6862: Narrow, a tight place, a pebble, an opponent

Strong's Hebrew: 6862. צָר (tsar) — 111 Occurrences
Strong's Hebrew: 7854. שָׂטָן (satan) — 27 Occurrences

צַר: from root צ-ר-ר (tz-r-r), meaning to bind, be narrow, be in distress
שָׂטָן: from root ש-ט-ן (s-t-n), meaning to oppose, be an adversary

צַר: adjective or noun
שָׂטָן: noun

צַר: often used in contexts of national enemies or personal distress
שָׂטָן: often used in legal or cosmic contexts of accusation or opposition

Their semantic ranges overlapped. From the frequency counts, tsar had a broader meaning, while satan focused more on a special job of persecution. By NT, the two words had rather different meanings because the satan-adversary became the person Satan, the devil.

Do we know if that includes payroll taxes?

Gov Ron Desantis said that they will conduct their own independent investigation as well.

We'll see who presents facts or tries to spin it for political purposes.

timothyu said:

"So God is still interested in reclaiming all nations for Himself"

Click to expand...

I might add that one of Heiser's big interests was driven by Psalm 82, about the council of the gods. The biblical worldview does not deny the plurality of gods. It differs from paganism (the Babylonian mystery religion of Nimrod, with the Devil behind him) by denying their equality or superiority to Yahweh Elohim - the "Lord of gods" (my rendering). Heiser's PhD thesis at UWM was on this topic, as I recall.

Scripture gives us little insight into the doings of the gods, though if angels, cherubs, seraphs, et al were taken out of the Bible, it would be a different book. They appear, often humanoid, offering piecemeal hints about the higher realm of interstellar governance. Now that humanity is on the verge of becoming space-faring, it fits in with this being the "last days" of the previous chapter in human history, where the climax of the exopolitical battle finds us in the middle of it. (I suggested on a previous thread the possibility that this conflict is about us and what Satan versus God wanted in bioengineering homo sapiens sapiens after the Ice Age. I know there is much to unpack in that statement!)

UFOlogy arose as an area of inquiry post-WWII and Michael Salla, former George Washington U. (in DC) professor of political science, has made a career of exopolitics; see his site at Exopolitics Unsurprisingly, Heiser was also interested in UFO-UAP doings and wrote some fictional books about it. (Fiction is where you can say what you believe, or strongly surmise, is true without being held to account for it!)

Rxlx said:

a 'supercontinent' implies a big island. not a totally encompassing land mass.

Click to expand...

It's not an island.
In geology, a supercontinent is the assembly of most or all of Earth's continental blocks or cratons to form a single large landmass.


Islands would be those pieces of land surrounded by water
Supercontinents can have any shape.

Diamond72 said:

Ezekiel 28

17Your heart grew proud of your beauty;

Click to expand...

Diamond72 said:

you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor;
so I cast you to the earth;

Click to expand...

The meaning of Ezekiel 28:13-14 is a little harder to unravel.

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone
adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and
jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on
the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained
you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked
among the fiery stones.
Ezekiel 28:13-14 NIV



John Gill’s commentary provdes some enlightenment on this.

<< Ezekiel 28:13
Ver. 13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God,.... Not only in Eden, but in
the garden which was in Eden, and was of the Lord's immediate planting; and
therefore called the garden of God, as well as because of its excellency,
fragrancy, and delight; not that the king of Tyre was literally there, or ever
dwelt in it; but his situation in Tyre was as safe, and as pleasant and delightful,
as Adam's was in the garden of Eden, at least in his own imagination. So the
Targum,
"thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if
thou dwellest in the garden of God;'' >>

What of the mention of “guardian cherub” in verse 14? John Gill’s commentary:

<< Ezekiel 28:14
Ver. 14. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth,.... In allusion to the
cherubim over the mercy seat, which covered it with their wings; and which,
as the ark of the testimony and all the vessels of the tabernacle were anointed,
were so likewise; in all probability the king of Tyre is called a "cherub"
because of his wisdom and power; "anointed", because of his royal dignity;
and "that covereth", because of his office, which was to protect his people; all which he either was, or ought to be, or was in his own opinion so: antichrist
makes great boasts of his wisdom, power, and authority, as a teacher, pastor, or
bishop, the cherubim being symbolical of the ministers of the word; and of his
being anointed by men, that he may be the cover and shield of the church; and
of his being the Lord's anointed, and the vicar of Christ, and head and protector
of the church, as he calls himself {s}. The Targum understands all this of regal
power, and renders it,
"thou art a king anointed for a kingdom:'' >>

The King of Tyre was never really in Eden but was in a place of delight and safety. Likewise, the King of Tyre was never a cherub in the Jewish or Christian sense, but was anointed as a king.

RawStrength said:

That was sick (as in awesome) thanks so much for that. I'm gonna keep telling myself and others that the almighty God doesn't create losers. Thank you for the support and for being my cheerleader!

Click to expand...

Always! Know that we on this board have your back in prayer and would love for you to keep us updated on your triumphs. They're coming! I'm glad to have met you, my brother.

Bobber said:

It's actually an interesting question. A few months back in our home bible study we were pondering this very thing.

I suggested the following that many found quite interesting. Just why would Satan who they say was called Lucifer at the time.....even think to go this direction. Could it possibly have been for this reason? He knew God was all powerful when it came to ability....but perhaps he looked upon the gracious, kind, loving character of God as being LOVE and started to envision within himself maybe it's a weakness? In other words if he took actions to rebel against LOVE maybe LOVE would be too nice and give in having no backbone.

His great failure however was not to appreciate that for LOVE to be LOVE it has to draw the lines and stand by them in no uncertain terms or it'll bring darkness or what I call the degeneration of LIFE. LOVE made a warning of punishment so severe as well to keep all away from going into death. I think Satan wagered God ultimately wouldn't have the character to back it up. His way was a new way of strength according to him and he talked some angels into it. Of course we know the end result. HE WAS WRONG. He was trying to re-invent the wheel which rightly didn't need to be changed and most of the angels rejected his crazy presumptuous notion. I'm not saying all I shared here was exactly the way it was but it feels that way to me.

Click to expand...

Presumably Satan thought he could rule the earth as his own kingdom just as he rules it now from his base on and in the moon?

so..... what is the point of this thread?