Apple Sky said:

Probably, to low earth orbit.

Click to expand...

lol at least you are conceding that there IS a space beyond earth. But Artemis 1 made it all the way to the moon.

rjs330 said:

I agree part 1 doesn't apply.

I disagree. When citizens are attacking agents attempting to stop them form doing their jobs and are attacking federal buildings where agents are located, surrounding agents and attempting to prevent them from doing their jobs thats rebellion.

Click to expand...

No, that's not a rebellion. It's not organized, nor is it trying to overthrow the government or otherwise seize control of the state.

rjs330 said:

They are able to arrest people, but that doesn't mean they are able to arrest everyone they are trying to.

Click to expand...

Law enforcement is never able to arrest everyone that they try to.

Apple Sky said:

Then why tell me that I'd need to take it up with the astronauts over certain issues we have discussed ?

Click to expand...

Charles Duke is testifying that he walked on the moon; you are saying that he is lying. Not mistaken, confused or anything else - lying.
That means, he knows for a fact that he did not walk on the moon but is choosing to say that he did. He could not have got to the moon on his own - he would have needed a rocket, space suit, breathing apparatus etc etc. And the provision of those things would have involved a whole team of people; NASA.
Can NASA confirm whether he is likely to be telling the truth or lying? Yes, because they would have provided all that other stuff. So if you want confirmation of the astronauts' statements - ask NASA.

But usually when we mention this your immediate response is that NASA are liars.
So why would you want us to ask them anything?

And by the way, if you think Charles Duke lied about the moon, you also think he is lying about Jesus.

BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:

read the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8 "I will make a NEW Covenant.. this IS the Covenant.. I will write MY LAW on their heart and mind..."

IN Context -- Jermiah's readers knew this to be in ref to the Commandments of God in Ex 20 where Deut 5:22 says He spoke the Ten "and added no more"

Click to expand...

I have already responded to this and even showed you where this is a covenant with the house if Israel, not with the gentiles.

BobRyan said:

"from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before ME to worship" Is 66:23

Click to expand...

Audience= Israel.

BobRyan said:

So then -- you do not claim to be under the New Covenant of scripture?
I am a bit surprised by that

1. Love God with all your heart and mind in Matt 22 is directly from the LAW of Moses in Deut 6;5
2. Love your neighbor as yourself in Matt 22 is directly from the LAW of Moses in Lev 19:18

Click to expand...

Are you actually reading and replying to my actual post? I have already explained this but you ignored it.

BobRyan said:

And these two are the bedrock foundation of ALL scripture and Law as Christ said RATHER Than "on these two commands I now DELETE all scripture and all law" as some have it.

Click to expand...

The two commandments summarize ALL of the law meaning that the law is no longer binding for the Christian. The law was never given to the gentiles in the first place.

BobRyan said:

ALL are BASED on those two commands in the Law of Moses --- Jesus does not say all scripture is DELETED by those two commands

Click to expand...

You are continuing with the Strawman. I have already answered this so reply to my answer.

BobRyan said:

Commands that Christ perfectly complied with (which is the meaning of Fulfill in this context

Click to expand...

Yep. The only one that could.

BobRyan said:

Fulfill as in "perfectly comply with" in this context.

Click to expand...

Nope. The first covenant went away because Jesus fulfilled it.

“When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭8‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

There you go. It does not get any clearer.

BobRyan said:

Which is why in Rom 13 we TOO are commanded to "comply with it" to fulfill it.

Rom 13:9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law

Obviously this "fulfill" is in the sense of "perfectly comply with " rather than "perfectly delete"

Click to expand...

No. Fulfill= completed.

BobRyan said:

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Click to expand...

It was fulfilled in us through Jesus redemptive sacrifice.

BobRyan said:

Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

That's right -- taking God's name in vain is STILL a sin, believe it or not

Click to expand...

Yes. Jesus first commandment.

BobRyan said:

Matt 28 the post-crucifixion command of Christ is "Go and TEACH them to observe all that I commanded YOU" and in fulfillment of that command the Gospel accounts are written to teach us all that Christ commanded His followers.

Click to expand...

Not the law, that’s for sure.

BobRyan said:

He did not say "Go and teach them to IGNORE ALL that I taught you"

Click to expand...

Another Strawman.

BobRyan said:

Indeed -- perfectly complied with , not perfectly deleted.

Moral law is prescriptive. It tells us what is right. You do not DELETE the command to have no other God's before the one true God, by one act of serving only our one God. Rather you have to ALWAYS do that, same is true of the command to not take God's name in vain.

Click to expand...

The Strawman continues.

BobRyan said:

This is incredibly obvious to all of us

true. But just like the speed limit (another prescriptive law in human terms) , one act of compliance does not delete that Law.

This is incredibly obvious to all of us. I am not saying anything you do not already know is true.

True. But the result is not that it is no longer a sin to take God's name in vain.

The Law remains.

Eph 6:1-3 is an appeal to the STILL VALID set of TEN in the OT

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth."

Paul ADDs to his own command to "obey parents" by appealing to the SET of TEN where the 5th commandment is the FIRST COMMANDMENT in that set of TEN with a promise.

Notice it is not the first command in scripture with a promise. Rather in the TEN. Paul appeals to the TEN just as Jesus did in Matt 19, Just as James does in James 2, just as Paul does in Rom 7 and in Rom 13.

This idea that to comply with moral law is to end it, to delete it , to abolish it is false.

Rom 3:31 "what then? Do we ABOLISH the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW ol God"

We do not DELETE a Law that we comply with and ESTABLISH

This point cannot be any more obvious.

James 2 says to break even one of the TEN is to break them all.

Click to expand...

What part of the law is a curse do you not grasp? Why would Jesus REDEEMED us from the curse of the law only to continue being under the law? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

.
Letitia James' job is to investigate broken laws and to prosecute the law breakers; Trump's job is to govern not to prosecute nor to direct prosecutions. I do remember one of Trump's most popular campaign rally cries was "Lock her up! Lock her up!" with "her" being Hillary Clinton the first time round and Kamala Harris the third time round.

Colo Millz said:

William Peter Blatty went on to direct The Exorcist III and lived his life as a committed Catholic with his wife.

Click to expand...

The Exorcist III was based on Blatty's own 1983 sequel novel, entitled Legion. The rest of the movies, as far as I know, were not based on his novels---they used the characters and outlines for plots dreamed up by Hollywood screenwriters.

Bradskii said:

Which is in response to me: 'And as there are no acts without context...'

Well, allrighty then. Give me an act without context from which you can determine the morality.

And any response maybe a day or two in coming. I'm in the middle of the Nullabor. Connection to the interweb is iffy at best.

Click to expand...

I'm afaid you won;t find morality out there.

My point is there would be no context if there were no objective morality. You need objective or absolute morality to create the context for which it diverges from.

If theres no objective basis then theres no morality and context is just different ways of expressing personal feelings or preferences and not actually anything moral.

Apple Sky said:

All's I'm saying is that she'll have to take it up with NASA, I've been told the same many times on here.

Click to expand...

Why will I have to take up with NASA the fact that you're wrong?

If NASA knew, or even cared, what we were saying, they'd agree with me.

d taylor said:

-

​

That was just a stunt to satisfy at the time a country who still was religious.

Click to expand...

He pulled a stunt on an event which never happened?
Right.

d taylor said:

I guarantee if this deception would have been been done today for the very first time. There would have been absolutely no reading from The Bible (Genesis 1, etc..)

Click to expand...

You can't guarantee anything.

d taylor said:

This is all they read

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Click to expand...

Yes. God's word was read from the moon - you've even just confirmed it.

d taylor said:

But stopped before they came to this part of Genesis

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Click to expand...

So? They couldn't read all of it, could they?
You should be happy that any of it was read and broadcast to millions of people - not quibbling because they didn't read certain verses.
Don't you get it? God's word was read from the moon. Not the Quran, book of Mormon or some humanist declaration about how powerful man was - the word of GOD. And millions heard it.

Only a conspiracy theorist would say, "oooh, they stopped before this verse; that's suspicious."

Apple Sky said:

Rockets always arch over & never go straight up.

Just like NASA never a straight answer

Click to expand...

This has been dealt with many times in answers to you. The reason they don't go straight up is because in order to overcome the weight of the rocket holding it to the earth, it needs to reach a certain speed. That is done by circling the earth, before it then goes in the intended direction.

What have you asked NASA that they didn't give a straight answer to?

Vambram said:

‘He Deserves All The Credit’: Ex-Dem Strategist Praises Trump For ‘Historic’ Israel-Hamas Peace Deal

Former Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine praised Donald Trump on Monday's “The Morning Meeting” for brokering a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.

dailycaller.com

Here's another Democrat who is giving President Trump credit for this peace deal.

Click to expand...

Another leader who understands the challenges of brokering peace congratulates President Trump.



“I am deeply grateful and relieved that this day has come – for the last living 20 hostages who have been through unimaginable hell and are finally reunited with their families and loved ones, and for the civilians in Gaza who have experienced immeasurable loss and will finally get the chance to rebuild their lives,” writes Biden.

“The road to this deal was not easy. My Administration worked relentlessly to bring hostages home, get relief to Palestinian civilians and end the war. I commend President Trump and his team for their work to get a renewed ceasefire deal over the finish line,” writes Biden.

bèlla said:

There’s a misconception in our society regarding information and the exchange of funds. Content creators aren’t charities. Whatever their motivation the end goal for most is compensation. They’re well within their right to exchange their knowledge for a fee. If you don’t want to pay that’s fine. It doesn’t bother me and I view their legwork as a service. Which frees up my time for other things. I’d appreciate it before they put it behind a paywall. YouTube won’t always be like that. You’ll see a portion of content for free in the future.

~bella

Click to expand...

Again, you miss my point. I don't care that he's making money off of his videos. I'm cautioning you that he has a financial incentive to present this topic in the way that he does. Maybe he's right - I don't care enough to really dig into the claims he made - but people scaremongering on an issue that they sell services to resolve should always be treated with skepticism.

If a roofer randomly approached you and told you that you needed a new roof - oh, and by the way, he can do the job tomorrow - I'd hope that you'd at least get a 2nd opinion before immediately assuming that you need a new roof.

David Lamb said:

What do you mean, enter space?

Click to expand...

Rockets always arch over & never go straight up.

Just like NASA never a straight answer

Fantine said:

Extorting rare earth minerals from desperate countries in return for help?

And we can't forget the reign of terror by ICE agents and unwanted, unneeded federal troops. With every sentence he spreads hatred and division.

Click to expand...

How is any of these related to what's happening in Gaza?

I am a critic of President Trump, much like many others. At present, I am expressing criticism across several threads regarding some of his policies. However, this does not mean that I am unable to acknowledge his achievements when warranted. We should not be so narrow-minded as to withhold credit from President Trump when he makes positive contributions, simply because we may disagree with him on other issues.

Yesterday marked a positive development in Israel and Gaza. President Trump played a significant role in facilitating this outcome, and it is appropriate to acknowledge his contributions.

Hentenza said:

It made it to space.

Click to expand...

Probably, to low earth orbit.

Stopped_lurking said:

So from the data they show there are things that needs explanations, they show their own measure but I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name.

Click to expand...

As far as I understand on this particular measure which is from the UnChartedX site is in both guage sensor and CT scanning from memory. Its in 3d as its talking about cyclinricity on the opening to determine axis B which is the horizontal center line of that cyclinder down the vase.

So the specific widest point on the vase that number is measuring for concentricity is based on a 3D reference point which is axis B the center line of the cyclinder running down the vase.

Stopped_lurking said:

So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.

Click to expand...

The vases tested at Petrie museum are from Petries digs in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most vases would be from Petries digs as he was the pioneer and has whole museums full of stuff.

Stopped_lurking said:

This is not something that inspires confidence.

Click to expand...

Thats why it takes time to ensure everything is done properly. They started testing vases and came up against the providence issue and then Karoly began to test vases at museums with good providence only this year. So more needs doing. But so far very interesting results.

Stopped_lurking said:

Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.

Click to expand...

Yeah I would expect all areas need to be consulted. But as mentioned the aim is to test vases which have already been verified by archeologists like at museums.

Stopped_lurking said:

Self-publishing is not formal.

Click to expand...

Why. What I mean by formal is that if you notice the tests and analysis is written like a paper with method, results, discussion and conclusion. Proper tests are done and the process is explained. All the steps are laid out that will support the conclusion so that people can read it and check it.

Its sort of on the level of a scientific paper that is submitted to peer review. Except its just not being submitted to peer review if you know what I mean. Rather than on a social media site where you don't have to follow that rigor and formality.

Stopped_lurking said:

What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Thats why I keep going back to the conclusions and summaries. They explicitly state that the findings show the precision in some vases to be on par with modern machining and lathing. I must have said this 10 times now. REgardless of all these objections they still clearly contradict the claim that these vases are not on par with modern machined vases on some sort of lathe.

They all, every independent research group all say this. Like I asked other posters. Are they lying, or misrepresenting the data. Or just so dumb that they don't see these obvious mistakes.

Are these deviations so big that these researchers are just blind that they cannot see what you see. This is what it comes down to. Your and other peoples opinion as opposed to these researchers.

Stopped_lurking said:

No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max. It's interesting but probably not the final word, it is enough to realise that more analysis on well provenanced objects is needed.

Click to expand...

OK fair enough. Then perhaps we should dedicate as much time on scrutinising those making analysis on this thread to the same level as what has been thrust upon the researchers. Questioning their credibility, wanting to know every detail about their qualifications and questions their qualifications as to whether they are most suitable for the testing. I don;t see any consistency here.

Stopped_lurking said:

They have as much credibility, I'm for peer-review. It is done by experts in their respective field, but then Chris Dunn, the Artifact Foundation and Max need to get going and actually publish their findings.

Click to expand...

See this is a prime example of the inconsistency applied by skeptics. You and I know to what extent skeptics have been subjecting these researchers to. I can go back and show you if you want. But all sorts of demeaning names and questioning every little thing. I don't see that level of scrutiny on those objecting like yourself.

No one has hounded you for every qualification and then questioning whether you have the expertise. You don't question others on this thread to that level when they make their little claims and analysis. You just accept them as credible without asking to see their credentials. This reflects the inconsistency and bias.

Stopped_lurking said:

They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.

Click to expand...

I think this is dishonest. To begin with the researchers article is done like a peer reviewed paper with the abstract, method, analysis, discussion and conclusion. Thats the formal way scientfific articles are done. I don't see any of that on this thread. Or are you now lowering the bar on this thread and allowing parts there of as equivelant.

They simply don't even look the same or have anywhere near as much info. Surely your not saying the complaints about one part of one a specific measure represents the entire article and testing of the whole vase. Where is this 3 or 4 page article with all these steps lol.

Stopped_lurking said:

It's not a fallacy.

Click to expand...

The point is I can say "it is a fallacy" just like you have your opinion. If you can say it without qualification then so can I and it can keep on going. If you say that remarks on this social media are good enough and are equivelant to a 5 or 10 page formal test and analysis. Then anyone can say anything and it counts as a formal scientific article. Its a crazy way to do acience.

Stopped_lurking said:

Where did I say they are not experts? I said their expertise in relevant subjects haven't been shown. Do they publish in metrology? Max is the closest one but his scientific output is not in 3D scanning.

Click to expand...

But what you don't realise in saying that their expertise has not been shown. I can just say your expertise has not been shown for you to make such a complaint lol. I can say I don't trust your credentials. If this social media site is equivelant to a formal science article then we can say anything and its classed as science.

Stopped_lurking said:

The data if true is nothing more than there exists vases with very good quality. I have no problem with someone arguing, that perhaps the potter's wheel made it across the Red Sea 1000 years earlier therefore I'll go and try to find it.

Click to expand...

Wow, thats all I am saying but its like its the hardest thing for some to admit. Just to admit these vases are out of the ordinary for that time. You have added that perhaps a wheel or lathe was around 1,000 years before the orthodox story tells us.

Thats better than pretending that these vases don't exist. But it does acknowledge how we have to somehow adjust things ie either they are fakes, the measures are wrong or the tech must have been there earlier than we think.

Which all supports what I have been saying all along. Which was that simple these vases are out of place artifacts. It may be they are fakes, or that the tech was there earlier than we thought. But please don't pretend the question and mystery does not exist one way or another.

You have come closest because you at least acknowledge that they exist and come from that time and that they are at least precise enough to have required a wheel which is like a lathe.

Stopped_lurking said:

Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.

Click to expand...

Of note I pointed out that these engineers are also specialists in precision tooling up to the aerospace precision. Dunn in particular over 50 years in machining, tool making from the basic laths of the 60s to modern CNC for NASA. So they know metrology as that is a key part in tolerances.

Stopped_lurking said:

To do the measurements, not the metrology.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly think a expert precision tool maker could not do both the measurements and the scientific study of measurements as part of the same expertise in making precision tools. In fact Dunn makes the machines that make the precision tools.

Stopped_lurking said:

Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.

Click to expand...

I only mentioned that as it sounds cool. But Max does all sorts of scanning and testing. Thats what he specialises in. Half thee reason he is doing the vases is because he already has an equipped lab. Why would he have the equipment and not know how to use it lol.

I would say Christ Dunn, Alex Dunn, Nick Sierra and Chris Knight have the most expertise being machinists and precision tool makers. Petrie was a machinist and archeologists. But when it comes to precision its a machinist and precision tooling. The best as far as practical experience would be a Stone mason and any Stone mason will tell you that these vases could not be done by hand.

Stopped_lurking said:

No

Click to expand...

Then why have not you questions others on this thread about their credentials as much as you have these researchers.

Stopped_lurking said:

But the use of turntables has already been hypothesised by an article that YOU referenced. They existed in the world at that time, there would be cool if they found explicit evidence for it. This wouldn't be a crisis for egyptology.

Click to expand...

Actually they speculate and they are never specific. They have too as the evidence shows these vases were lathed. But the fact is its orthodoxy that the potters wheel and bore stick type lathe did not come in until the old kingdom around 2600BC. A 1,000 years before these vases.

But its also that even if we try and force fit that some sort of lath was around. It would be such a basic one that would not be stable and have tight tolerances. So either way these vases exceed the tech available.

But I keep saying your seeing these vases in isolation. When you understand that there are many examples of advanced tech and knowledge across a variety of works you begin to sort of expect this and not try to deny it. It forms a worldwide pattern that makes too strong a case.

Stopped_lurking said:

No, I'm not an expert in these fields.

Click to expand...

Yet you make claims like you an expert and don't subject yourself to the same scrutiny. You just questioned that the researchers were not qualified enough. But neither are you to make the determination.

Stopped_lurking said:

Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.

Click to expand...

The point is you can write in and dispute the findings. Thats how its designed. To be able to down load the files and do it yourself and either find fault or find new discoveries in the works like Unsigned.io did with the geometry.

At least its got a site and base to collect and compare.

Stopped_lurking said:

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

I have never said that any specific measurement is wrong? I'm saying they need to get their data published and peer-reviewed, if they want to be taken seriously. Right now all they're doing is conjecture.

Click to expand...

Ok and I agree that its not just peer review but more tests of more vases in museums. More repeated tests of the same vases by the same method and by independent testers. THis is ongoing and the testers admit this. But the findings so far are interesting.

Stopped_lurking said:

Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.

Click to expand...

Well thats officially as there have been may 10 plus. A few single tests such as the OG has been done around 6 times or more. A couple of vases replicated by modern CNC and compared, and a lot of guage testing as this is easy. But more museum tests are needed.

Stopped_lurking said:

This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.

Click to expand...

Yes I just mentioned that. Like I said its relatively new and more of a data base is needed.

Stopped_lurking said:

What claims?

Click to expand...

I don't think you realise. For example when you say "I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name" or No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max.

Just these two and theres more just in this post but also in others are making a unsupported claim as well as one that needs qualification as to what expertise you have to know these things. You may have this but you have never qualified this and just assumed it holds enough factual weight to stand on its own.

Especially the first one which would require some step by step explanation and context. Put it this way I am suspect of your expertise just by the fact you say you "don't believe". So this is clearly an unqualified claim. So imagine all the others from other posters where they have made claims or objected and never gave any qualification of their expertise.

Yet as a total I think we have spent half this last part of the thread on scrutinising the researchers. While accepting out of hand the qualifications and expertise of the objecters.

SabbathBlessings said:

You seem to be missing our original discussion

Click to expand...

That's my line.

The point is that forever means forever.

SabbathBlessings said:

Please provide Scripture. Did it serve different purposes? Please provide Scripture.

Click to expand...

You seem to keep retreating back to this irrelevant point to my original point.. I have established that there were differences. That proves my point.

This red herring doesn't change that.

Apple Sky said:

SpaceX Starship Successful 11 Launch​

Login to view embedded media
It had a successful launch but as per you never see it enter space.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, enter space? Do you expect to see a sudden change when the rocket leaves the earth's atmosphere? That atmosphere gets thinner and thinner the higher one goes, as mountaineers know. It doesn't suddenly change from "atmosphere" to "space."

Apple Sky said:

SpaceX Starship Successful 11 Launch​

Login to view embedded media
It had a successful launch but as per you never see it enter space.

Click to expand...

“The flight test began with Super Heavy igniting all 33 Raptor engines and ascending over the Gulf. The successful first-stage ascent was followed by a hot-staging maneuver, with Starship’s upper stage igniting its six Raptor engines to continue its flight to space.”


It made it to space.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Sadly, that's all they know. That's why early education is very important for young kids. Free mommy classes would be a good. Teaching about BC. Having free BC and condoms available. Drug programs. It would be nice if churches and the government would help these people.

Click to expand...

No it is not all they know, it is a life style they want to live. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people.

SimplyMe said:

Why generate clean energy when we can burn more oil?

Click to expand...

Trump loves big Oil companies.

Bradskii said:

Maybe you meant gathering in the rubble which has buried so many tens of thousands of their loved ones.

Oh, sorry. You must have been referring to the Israelis. My bad.

Click to expand...

If a ceasefire or steps toward peace aren't celebrated, perhaps the IDF could resume fighting. Critics of Israel seem perpetually dissatisfied, even when peace is possible, which may explain why Israel often ignores them.

BobRyan said:

Turns out we are also supposed to "Love GOD with all our heart" Deut 6:5, Matt 22.

Click to expand...

And we do but not as part of the Jewish law but as the commandment given by Jesus. There is a difference.

BobRyan said:

It is TWO Commands in the Law of Moses that form the bedrock foundation for ALL Law and ALL scripture Matt 22.

Click to expand...

And the two commandments summarize the whole law so no longer the law but the Spirit. The law is not of faith or of the Spirit. You can’t keep the law and walk by the Spirit at the same time.

BobRyan said:

Christ does not say in Matt 22 "By these two commands I have deleted all scripture and all of God's Law"

Click to expand...

Strawman. No one is arguing that the law was deleted.

BobRyan said:

No wonder Paul says in Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Click to expand...

The believer does not walk on the flesh but by the Spirit. You are misinterpreting this passage. Let me remind you how Romans 8 begins.

“Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭1‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Do you honestly think that Paul is promoting the law even after calling it weak and ineffective? Unfortunately your interpretation creates quite a bit of tension in scripture even within the same author. The Bible writers don’t condemn something in one place only to promote it in another. I exhort you to reconsider your interpretations in light of tension and adjust accordingly. The Bible is consistent in its teachings.