CoreyD said:

Well we don't need a PhD to know it has to be before Genesis 1:2


It doesn't say it's not an event.
Like the verses following though, it's part of the account,
Hence to claim it's not an event, is to detach it from the events... on whose authority? Your own.


Inserting texts now. That's adding... which is like changing the text.
Do you love dishonesty, so long as it supports your ideas?

@Jerry N. can you or your wife read this?
View attachment 373051


Says the woman with the user name Job 33:6.


No. Cheating or being dishonest will get you there, but it is really like In the beginning I rode my bike.


No. It does not.
You went for a translation that inserted a word, to suit your beliefs.
One paraphrase Bible - Good News Translation, and two New ones. Three out of all.
That's not honesty as far as I am concerned.


God created the earth, according to Genesis 1:1. Not began to.
Honesty they say, is the best policy. The Bible says, it's mandatory. Hebrews 13:18


You never did say what the heavens refer to when the Bible says the expanse of the heavens, and you never responded to my question.
The water does not exceed the highest heavens, so that tells us there are heavens above the expanse.
Do you accept that?

You never did address these either.

1. 
   Oceans and seas are both large bodies of saltwater, but they differ primarily in size, depth, and geographical location. Oceans are vast, deep, and continuous expanses of water that cover approximately 71% of Earth's surface, forming one interconnected global ocean.
   Seas, in contrast, are generally smaller, shallower, and are typically partially enclosed by land, often located at the margins of oceans where they meet continents or islands.
   While seas are part of the larger ocean system, they are distinguished by their proximity to land and often have unique ecological and geographical characteristics.
   
   God created seas from the existing body of water described as the watery deep.
   The seas did not exist until the earth move, but the body of water existed before.
   God is not now creating the body of water again. That would be ridiculous to say.
   The seas are a new creation. They have now come into existence with the movement of the earth.
2. 
   The heaven that God here creates, is the expanse, where the birds fly, etc. See this post.
   It's not the heavens. That's why from Genesis 1:14-18, we read "heaven / expanse of the heavens"
   Did you not read that... expanse of the heavens?
   Then read it again, as it is described. The expanse is heaven, right? Therefore the expanse of the heavens is the heaven of the heavens, is it not?
   Genesis 1:1 reads "God created the heavens..." Not the heaven.
   The heavens in verse 1 is not the expanse.
   The expanse lies within the heavens... if you consider realistically, that the earth actually is in the heavens. It's a body within space.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:1

When God began to create*When God began to create Others “In the beginning God created.” heaven and...

www.sefaria.org

Jewish Publication Society of America Version - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SavedByGrace3 said:

Say what they want. But their opinions have no more weight than those of an illegal immigrant. We are American citizens. My family has been here since 1620. I have people in the Revolution, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, VN, and the Gulf War. We have blood in this matter. My family has 250 years of blood, sweat, and tears. We cut down the trees, plowed the land, and picked up weapons when called up. We have been paying taxes since the nation was started. Foreigners can say anything they want. But their words really do not weigh beyond a logical position. Fine. They do not have any say in where that money goes. They have no say in who our leaders are. They have no say in our laws, our constitution, or the fate of our children. I assume they have problems in their own countries that need attending to. They have a say there. Not here.
I do not ignore their opinions... I just wonder why they care what happens in my country?

Click to expand...

SabbathBlessings said:

This isn't the Biblical definition of rest, but I will give some alternate Scriptures for consideration for those who might be interested.

Click to expand...

SabbathBlessings said:

Does this mean we can steal or start worshiping other gods.

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

Campaign for Accountability is very wrong about their accusation that there is no probable cause.

Click to expand...

The Situation: Where’s the Lie?

The government’s response to James Comey’s vindictive prosecution raises one very big and important question.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Der Alte said:

Could you please provide scripture to support his statement "As far as Sheol, it’s actually divided into two separate places. Abraham’s Bosom is the place for the righteous, and Hades is the place for the wicked where they do suffer in torment until judgment day when they will be judged then thrown into the lake of fire."

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

There should be a searing Congressional investigation into this malfeasance, but instead Musk is put out to pasture with a "U tryed" sticker.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

In other words, today's rhetoric is basically a "Ha ha we fooled you" admission "mea culpa" for those who got snookered into believing "hey this shutdown is the fault of Republicans, it is a Republican shutdown no matter that all Republican Senators vote to open the government".

Lesson for all, try not to be so easily snookered.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

These are the Senate Democrats who voted to reopen the government

After reaching a bipartisan deal, Senate Democrats finally gave Republicans the votes needed to advance a government funding measure.

www.cbsnews.com

Looks like there are brave Democrats who know it is time to open the government - here are their names.

Washington — Seven Democratic senators and one independent who caucuses with Democrats voted late Sunday to reopen the government and end the shutdown.​

​

Three of them have consistently voted for Republicans' short-term funding patch — which passed the House in mid-September — to keep the government funded until Nov. 21 at current levels. The measure narrowly advanced in the Senate after it secured the support of five more Democrats with the expectation that it will be amended to extend funding until Jan. 30.​

Click to expand...

Aryeh Jay said:

Time to re open the Benghazi files.

Click to expand...

RisenInJesus said:

Exactly. God has made irrevocable promises to Israel, which make no sense when people try applying them to the church or ignore altogether. I think it’s very important for Christians to rightly divide the scriptures and understand that there are three groups of people; Jews (Israel), Gentiles (non-Jews), and the church (born again believers-Jews and Gentiles).

“After the Cross a new entity came into existence—the church that Jesus Christ promised He would build (Mt 16:18). As a result, there are now three divisions of mankind: Jews, Gentiles and the church. Paul tells us that we are to “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Cor 10:32). It is absolutely essential to understand that these three groups exist side by side in today’s world, to distinguish between them, and to recognize that God deals with each differently.”

Jews, Gentiles, And The Church

prophecyupdate.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

Well that in itself is problematic. Any statement you pull from our discussion does not contain the full context of it.

I shouldn't have to point out that if you're relying on AI to determine what is accurate, you have no business participating critically in this discussion (by that, I mean, I'm being overly gracious in entertaining your objections, not that you can't, of course, say whatever you please). I'm happy to answer questions, explain my reasoning, or engage with your own objections, but outsourcing your thinking to a fallible AI is intellectually lazy at best and disqualifying at worst. AI is not trustworthy. It can help retrieve information (and even then, it's not always reliable and can be manipulated -- whether intentionally or not -- to support whatever you want, depending on how you word your prompt), but it cannot replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

Yes, which I clarified and expanded on in post #95. You've not interacted with any of the reasoning laid out there. You're simply being argumentative at this point.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

Thank-you so much St_worm2, very kind of you. I feel pretty comfortable regardless of the forum because at the end of the day, it's just a website and you can log off if it isn't your preference.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

I was up front about the autism and my circumstances because for me it is relevant. At the same time, I know from experience on a different forum how sharing this info. has been used against me. I won't name the forum, but I have experienced relentless online harassment for years simply for sharing certain details.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

Anonymity can sometimes be advantageous. I also believe some people are simply quite disturbed and likely mentally ill when their behaviour is to inflict harm intentionally. I try not to take comments personally when they come from people who in my view are unwell.

Click to expand...

That's a good attitude to have, especially online, because unlike the "old days" when we typically talked in person or, at least, over the phone to each other, acceptable/civil behavior is often replaced by rude behavior on social media platforms. People are mean (for all kinds of reasons .. the Christian faith talks at length about why, just FYI), but back when we were regularly forced to interact with one another "in person" to communicate, it seemed so much easier to treat other people like, well, people

redraven said:

I don't share the experience of autism and the past harassment to sound like a victim either.

The isolation/unemployment is reality, but I do have resources available. I don't mind spending a lot of time online, but I also don't want my life to be spending 10 hours+ per day online and I want more meaningful connections that go beyond online.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

You mention the 'Golden Rule'. Do to others what you would have them do to you. I agree - this is basic common sense. Easy to understand in principle yet not always applied by all people.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

I don't see any quote from Mark Twain?

Click to expand...

​

Just FYI, "patience and kindness", according to the Bible, as the two principal "ingredients" (if you will) in Godly love (you'll find the whole "ingredients" list here: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a .. a passage that is read at most Christian weddings, in point of fact, as it ends with, "love never fails" (and if you'd care to read the passage in context, here are the first three verses prior to the "list" 1 Corinthians 13:1-8) the whole of which giving us much insight into the Christianity or, at least, what the Christian faith is supposed to look like, anyway).

redraven said:

Here is one I just looked up: "The secret of getting ahead is getting started'.

Click to expand...

That's a very good quote, as most of Twain's quotes are (even the rude ones ).

redraven said:

I am trying to find more meaning in my life. What exactly I should be working on I do not know.
I have been very motivated at various points in my life and maintained a more disciplined routine. These days I am unsure what I should do to find more meaning and purpose, though I have not given up hope.

Click to expand...

I have some ideas about that, because that (finding the true and ultimate meaning and purpose to life, that is) is a big part of what finally led me to the Christian faith 39 years ago (I wasn't always a Christian, just FYI). I'll leave talking about that for a later time however, and only if you want to hear about it then, of course.

--David
p.s. - here's another quote for you (one that is both thought-provoking and nice enough for the forum we are on, too ).

​

Dikaioumenoi said:

I've answered; you're not responding to what I answered. The issue isn't what the name means in isolation. The issue is how the angel explains the name:

"You shall call His name Jesus, for he will save His people from their sins"​

The future indicative σώσει is declarative and effectual. It is not probabilistic, partial, or tentative. Whoever falls under "His people" is guaranteed salvation. You're trying to separate the kind of salvation from its scope, but nothing in the text allows that. The angel's words present a definitive promise.


Again, γὰρ σώσει defines the essence and scope of His salvific mission. The angel's explanation of the name is itself a complete statement of the mission.


You're not understanding what you're quoting. The plural αὐτῶν refers to the sins of the group, not the people themselves. Notice what you quoted: "The “sins of the people” are considered collectively." (My emphasis)

So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.


As I already argued, what is relevant is how the author himself uses the language in context. And in Matt. 1:21, it is defined by redemptive belonging, not ethnicity.


Again, already answered. You are still making an unwarranted distinction between lexical precedent and authorial redefinition. It does not matter how the specific phrase is used in other contexts; what matters is how it is used here. Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context. Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

In other words, even if you view Matt. 1:21 as a partial disclosure of Jesus' mission, the kind of salvation described necessarily individualizes the referent. A corporate, ethnic category simply cannot receive forgiveness from sin in the sense Matthew uses here. Only those personally redeemed can fulfill that description. Hence, "His people" must refer to the redeemed community, not the Jewish nation as such.

Paul explicitly defines "Israel" not in ethnic but in redemptive terms ("not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" - Rom. 9:6).

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

Matthew is working from that same covenantal reality: Jesus' "people" are those whom He truly saves from their sins. And since Matt. 1:21 ties that saving mission directly to Jesus' name and incarnational purpose, the redefinition of God's people is already implicit in the angel's announcement.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

"From" does not mean "limited to." John 4:22 speaks of historical origin, not covenantal scope. The Messiah arises from Israel according to promise, yet His saving work immediately transcends that boundary. Matt. 1:21 is describing the effectual scope of salvation itself, not the ethnic channel through which it comes.


Your interpretation divorces the "nature" of the salvation from its object, which the text itself does not permit. You're splitting the angel's statement into two unrelated halves, as if the angel were saying, "Jesus will bring a kind of salvation from sins, but I'm not specifying for whom." That's not a reading of what's there in the text. You're looking for a way to make the text read how you want it to.

Grammatically, there are two ideas joined in a single purpose clause: σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The object ("His people") and the nature ("from their sins") are bound together by the same verb (σώσει). You can't separate what kind of salvation it is from who actually receives it. The act of saving defines both simultaneously: the redemptive efficacy and the identity of the people for whom it is effective. If the salvation described is effectual and redemptive ("He will save," not "He will offer salvation"), then "His people" must be those who actually experience that redemption. To reduce it to a general announcement to ethnic Israel ignores both the verbal aspect and the theological intent. The mission defines the people; the people do not define the mission.


No, it doesn't. That's pure conjecture, not argument. As I've already pointed out, literary audience and referential scope are entirely distinct categories. The fact that Matthew's readership was Jewish in no way proves that every instance of "His people" must denote national Israel. In fact, as I already argued, the opposite is more plausible. It is precisely because the audience is Jewish that Matthew labors to dismantle ethnic exclusivism and to redefine covenant membership around Christ. That gives him every reason to immediately recast the term "His people" in redemptive, not national, terms.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

There is physical death of the body. . and there is spiritual death of the human spirit (i.e., absence of eternal life).
At physical death of the body, the body ceases to exist except for its dust.
The human spirit is immortal and nevers cease to exist, even without eternal (God's) life.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

The soul does not die.
Adam and Eve died spiritually; I.e., they lost eternal life within their spirits.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Adam and Eve died spiritually; I.e., they lost eternal life within their spirits.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

They did not die physically, they died spiritually (loss of eternal life). . .there is a difference.
Physical death is cessation of the body's existence.
Spiritual death is not cessation of the immortal spirit's existence, it is absence of eternal (God's) life within the immortal human spirit.
Man is born in spiritual death (no eternal life in his spirit), by his nature an object of wrath (Eph 2:3), and who is reborn into eternal life by the sovereign choice (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

But the soul does not die.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Nor does man inherit sin. (Eze 18:20)
The sin with which man is born is the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19, 12-16), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to man, just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Ro 4:1-5).

Click to expand...

Tigger Boy said:

I have presented to you evidence in the words of Christ, as recorded in Jh. 20:17, that Christ did not go to heaven/paradise the day of His death, but two days latter. I have also shared with you in my first post (Ezekiel 18:20, and Rev. 16:3) which states that souls die, which I assume you don't believe. (John 5:28,29; Acts 2:29,34; Job 17:13) that the saved do not go to heaven when they die, nor the lost to hell, which i assume you believe. And Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10; Psalms 115:17) that the dead know nothing, nor do they praise the Lord. All of these Biblical texts and others I have not mentioned prove that the thief could not have gone to paradise along with Christ the day Christ was crucified.

You need not apologize for not agreeing with me, as you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. But certainly my previous posts show that I have given Biblical support for why the comma in Lk.23:43, has been placed in the wrong place, since it contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches on death. So no, I haven't relied on "it shouldn't be there to justify it

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

I'm guessing that it's undergoing some "adjustments."

Click to expand...

Michie said:

Testimonies are planting seeds. There is nothing wrong with writing and selling a book. A worker is worth their wages. It takes money to reach a wide audience, etc. You make a very good point about his celebrity opening people up to reading his testimony.

Click to expand...

Democrat Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election​

calicocat said:

When a bunch of violent, fighting-aged, disproportionately-male "refugees" started landing on my homeland in 1492 it didn't go well for us. And we didn't have our own leaders selling us out and our invaders weren't as fond of rape and their monogamy meant they didn't breed like rabbits. And we had a LOT of land. The effects took time to hit. And our elders gave awards to braves who fought back rather than jailing everyone who even complained about it.

Britain is cooked.

And they're cooked in the future on a level even the Native Americans weren't.

Ngl I don't care about Germany after what they did in the war, but watching Britain is horrifying.

Click to expand...

Bro.T said:

Well let's see what Paul is saying here in (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, Statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Now didn't Paul say in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

To sum up what going on here in Galatians, Paul is explaining that Christ came from Abraham seed, and remove the animal Sacrificial law. But in the days of Abraham that animal Sacrificial law never was on the table, and was not needed for Abraham to obey and have faith in God. But the Commandments was always on the table. Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created.

Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

In the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?
Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) 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. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love.

Click to expand...

FaithT said:

You’re welcome! How many stitches?

Click to expand...