• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

B flat B♭

I've been through all this in previous posts, try reading them.
And I have posted links to a website that sells tickets for sight=seeing flights over Antarctica. Where are they flying if, as the maps you posted indicate, Antarctica is beyond the edge of a flat earth? I couldn't see Antarctica on your maps. If Antarctica is not where believers in a flat earth say it is, why should the Arctic and the North Pole be at the centre as you claim?
Upvote 0

Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?
This is no better an explanation than what has been presented before and none every can explain the emergence of life. Or the emergence of anything from nothing and it does not matter how far you want to take the beginning back to.

THis is the fundemental issue that keeps coming up again and again and I think the fallacy of this explanation is being exposed more and more as we actually look deeper into the complexity and design of life.

Now we are at a point where we actually have to explain life. Not the inanimate world but the living and breathing life with agency and free will and conscious experiences of the beyond.

It cannot all be explained by non life creating life. Or combinations of inanimate objects somehow rubbing together to create life like some epiphenomena of consciousness.

This is completely an inadequate explanation and material science will never be able to account for life. Or existence for that matter. In fact I think the more we go on the more it will become aparent that there is something more alive or conscious in the very fabric of existence beyond what naturalism can possibly account for.
Upvote 0

Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

I'm making a complaint against killing people in peril at sea. Who is it you want me to hold accountable before I can complain about that?
You keep making this strawman and false claim. Your begging the question. You don't know the details because you are not privy to the information.

Yet you make a truth claims that this is 'Killing' without that information. Thus showing your bias that you are willing to assumed and judge and condemn without the evidence. You assume guilt before we actually know.

That in itself disqualifies you. I cannot trust someone who is willing to presume something before it is actually established. It shows they will never be fair.
Upvote 0

Etymology of bible words jew, jewish, gentile, judaism

I asked chat GPT to give the etymology of these words only from the bible, and only before 70 AD.

Here is the etymology of “Jew,” “Jewish,” “Judaism,” and “Gentile” using ONLY evidence from the Bible written before 70 AD:

✔ Hebrew Bible (Tanakh / LXX)
✔ Septuagint Greek (before 70 AD)
✔ New Testament books written before 70 AD (Paul, Mark, early Matthew sections, etc.)

No later sources, no post-70 AD history, no archaeology, no rabbinic texts, nothing after 70 AD.


⭐ 1. JEW

Hebrew Bible evidence (before 70 AD)

(A) Hebrew word: יְהוּדִי (Yehudi)

Meaning: “Judean,” a person of the tribe/territory of Judah.

Earliest appearance:

2 Kings 16:6


This is the first time in the Bible the word “Jew” appears.

Other uses:

  • Jeremiah 34:9 – “a free Jew” (Yehudi)
  • Esther 2:5 – “a certain Jew named Mordecai”
In the Hebrew Bible, Yehudi always means:

  • a person from Judah,
  • or by extension, someone belonging to the southern kingdom (Judah).

(B) Greek Septuagint (before 70 AD)

Hebrew Yehudi is translated as:

Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios)

Meaning: “Judean”.

Examples:

  • Esther 2:5 LXXAnd there was a man, a Judean (Ioudaios)
  • 2 Kings 16:6 LXXIoudaioi (“Judeans”)

What “Jew” meant before 70 AD (biblically):

  • A person from Judah
  • or a southern Israelite (after the split monarchy)
  • By NT times it could also mean a follower of the Judean religion
BUT the word always comes from “Judah.”


⭐ 2. JEWISH

The Hebrew Bible does not use an adjectival form (like “Jewish”).
Instead:

  • “the Judean people,”
  • “the people of Judah,”
  • “the customs of the Judeans.”

Examples (before 70 AD):

2 Kings 18:26 (Hebrew)


Here “Jewish language” = Yehudit = “the language of Judah.”

This is the only Hebrew Bible term resembling “Jewish.”

LXX term (before 70 AD)

Greek uses:

Ἰουδαϊκός (Ioudaikos) – “Judean / pertaining to Judeans”​

Examples:

  • 2 Maccabees 2:21 (pre-70 AD text)
    “The battles… for the Jewish (Ioudaikos) customs.”
  • Mark 7:3 (NT written before 70 AD)
    “The Jewish (Ioudaioi) traditions.”

⭐ 3. JUDAISM

This is actually a biblical word and it appears before 70 AD.

Original biblical term: Ἰουδαϊσμός (Ioudaismos)

Meaning:

  • “The way of the Judeans”
  • “The Judean religion / practices”

First appearance: 2 Maccabees 2:21


Other appearance: 2 Maccabees 8:1

New Testament (before 70 AD):​

Galatians 1:13–14

Paul uses the same Greek word:


What “Judaism” meant before 70 AD:

  • The religion of the Judeans
  • The customs of the post-exilic people of Judah
  • Not yet a global or modern system, but the pre-70 AD Judean faith

⭐ 4. GENTILE

This word comes from the Bible but through translation, not Hebrew etymology.

Hebrew Bible words (before 70 AD)

גּוֹי (goy) / גּוֹיִם (goyim)

Meaning:

  • “Nation”
  • “Peoples”
  • “Ethnic groups other than Israel”
Most famous examples:

  • Genesis 12:2 — Israel will be a great nation
  • Psalm 2:1 — “Why do the nations (goyim) rage?”
The Hebrew word does NOT mean “non-Jew.”
It simply means “nation.”

Greek Septuagint word (before 70 AD):

ἔθνη (ethnē)

Meaning:

  • “Nations,” “peoples,”
  • in Israel’s context: “the other nations”
NT Example:

  • Matthew 28:19 — “Make disciples of all nations (ethnē).”

Where “Gentile” comes from in the Bible:

When Jerome translated the LXX/NT into Latin (pre-70 AD usage preserved):

Latin Vulgate: gentes = nations

From this Latin word, English Bibles later used Gentile.

Meaning before 70 AD:

  • Goyim / ethnē = nations
  • Often meaning non-Israelite nations
    But not originally a derogatory term.

SUMMARY (Only Using Pre-70 AD Bible Evidence)

English TermPre-70 AD Hebrew TermPre-70 AD Greek TermBiblical Meaning Before 70 AD
JewYehudi = JudeanIoudaios = JudeanPerson from Judah (later the whole Judean people)
JewishYehudit = Judean languageIoudaikos = JudeanPertaining to Judeans (language, customs)
JudaismIoudaismosJudean religion/customs (2 Macc 2:21; Gal 1:13–14)
GentileGoy / Goyim = nationsEthnos / Ethnē = nationsAny nation (often non-Israelite)

⭐ If you want, I can also show:​

✔ Every OT verse containing Yehudi, Yehudit, goy, or goyim.
✔ Every LXX verse containing Ioudaios, Ioudaikos, ethnos.
✔ How “Ioudaios” changed meaning between 200 BC and 70 AD.
✔ The difference between Hebrew, Israelite, Judean, and Jew.

Just tell me!
it is amazing. You could then ask it how these words changed meaning after 70 AD. Christians are Judeans (Romans 2 28 29) meaning of the religion of Abraham.
Don't trust the word games of Ai. Man its bad enough that words became the meaning of reality under postmodernism. Let alone the tool of postmodernism chat GPT being in charge.

Try search other words like Priest and it becomes a rabbit hole of word meanings and changes conflated and twisted that you don't know whats going on. Then anyone can come and sample the word and choose the meaning and even reimagine it into a mixture of conflated meanings.

Without actually going to the sourse and checking its meaning in the real life context. The last thing we need is some Robot guru who uses words and their ever changing meanings as the new truth bearer over the real thing.
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

From AI just cause I am lazy today. Here is the measure of the curvature of the earth.

“ The circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,075 kilometers (24,901 miles) at the equatorand 40,008 kilometers (24,860 miles) through the poles. This difference is because the Earth is not a perfect sphere; it bulges at the equator due to its rotation, making the equatorial circumference slightly larger.“

Have a nice day. :wave:
When was this measure taken :doh:
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

What ever he believes in Hants was right the North pole is at the center of earth.

View attachment 374105
According to Flat Earthers and very out of date maps.
In the real world, however .......

Why would it be called the North Pole if if was in the middle?
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

God has deemed that government has the obligation to put fear into the hearts of evil doers to protect its people. And even God makes allowances for killing of evil doers by the governement. This is why you should not get into a debate over Christian matters. You dont know enough. You only have an opinion. And in the matter of Christian law and teaching you are ignorant.
??? What is the relevant Christian law ?
Upvote 0

B flat B♭

I took it that HantsUK meant (in context) that the correct position of the north pole as far as the flat earth believers are concerned is in the centre. I don't think Hants UK meant that he believes the North pole is in the centre.

What ever he believes in Hants was right the North pole is at the center of earth.

a map7.jpg


a map........................jpg
Upvote 0

Why we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath

Shabbat shalom :oldthumbsup:

Upvote 0

Trillions of Atoms

M (Mass) = E (Energy) and c2 (light).... Any one who is smart realizes it all came together with energy, frequency and vibration. Or.... E (Energy) / Light (frequency and vibration)... And the product of our mind and spirituality is also that of E/c2. Want to make a positive impact on your relationship? Do something to create nice vibes.

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

What is the true congregation?

First of all, I think that any church that has the apostolic succession, as the laying of hands is the method by which one is ordained within the Church, is more true than the ones that don’t have it. And I think it’s pretty audacious, for any Christian, to separate himself from the Church that Christ founded with his own hands.

That being said, we’re left with three denominations within the Apostolic Church. Which one is the true one?

While no individual or congregation is perfect, I would say that fulfilling the words of Christ to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s goes a long way. This also fulfills Romans 13.

And by Caesar I mean the actual hiers of Rome, not the usurpers.

So in that case you have to do the math, and some reading. Maybe follow the latest research at MSU, I dunno. You do you.
Upvote 0

Struggling with feeling God’s presence

There is, nothing particularly supernatural about this, but I think it’s a wise position:

Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Stop trying to put things in my head lol. I never said any of this and your are creating strawmen. Its not an either/or answer. We are trying to work it all out.

All we can do is gather data to get a better understanding. I am not saying the marks are from melting stone or any particular method. Only that the studies done show it was not from small dolerite pounders. Along with the analysis of the patterns in the mark showing a different and more uniform method.

As though the granite was scooped or dug out with a uniform method that was similar to the shape of the scoops. Along with other evidence showing the impracticality of using pounders in tight situations where its impossible.

Like I said this is not a one size fits all kind of determination. There may be a number of methods employed over 1,000s of years. Knowledge comes and goes and changes.

It may be that the scoops in stone come from a different method to thermal treatment. Look at the scoops in stone throughout the world. There are many that show no vitrification. Yet they show softened or weakened stone.

It may some way the structure of the granite was weakened and it was not melted but rather then material was changed at the molecular level. Such as with sonic cutting which weakens the crystals within the stone.

But the point is I am only guessing at the method. All we can do is look at the data which definitely shows the marks of a different method to dolerite pounders and nore like the stone has been scooped out as though the stone was compromised in some way.

If its basic highschool stuff then the ancient Egyptians knew about this. We should expect that many of their works will contain softened or melted limestone. Making it easier to work with. Including the building works containing limestone.

But then we also have examples of basalt and granite melted. What do you say about these.

No this is the point. Knowledge can come and go. The important thing is they were still living within the same immersion of direct conscious experiences of nature. Which enabled them to discover chemistry and physics. How nature worked and how it could change the physical world.

I want to know why you specifically choose this example and avoided the others. None of what you have said negates the facts and reality that we have examples of softened and melted stones around the world. Showing there was advanced knowledge in how to mess around with the material structures of rocks.

As usual you skip over the evidence and ignore most of it.
I can excuse you for failing to understand none of your images are examples of stone softening or weakening which can be explained by other mechanisms such as erosion. Only laboratory testing can confirm any petrological changes to the crystal structure the details of which went way over your head.

What is inexcusable however are your attempts to BS about dolerite pounders not being contemporary with or not used in making the unfinished obelisks.
Not only have the pounders been relatively dated to the unfinished obelisk but have been found in very excavation trench of the obelisk.
There is absolutely no doubt the pounders were used on the unfinished obelisk as there is absolutely no evidence of stone softening or weakening.

Here are reliable, peer-reviewed or academically published references where Egyptian granite, limestone, and tool-marked surfaces were scientifically tested for thermal alteration, chemical weakening, or softening.
All show no evidence of melting, vitrification, or artificial weakening.


I’ve grouped them by granite, limestone, and tool‐marks / quarrying evidence.




1. Tests on Egyptian Granite


1. Klemm, R. & Klemm, D.


“Geological Survey of Ancient Egyptian Quarries.”
(Geological Society of America Special Paper 2008)


  • Includes petrography, XRD, thin sections.
  • Confirms Aswan granite is geologically intact with no thermal alteration.

2. Harrell, J.A.


“Archaeological Geology of Ancient Egypt.” In Encyclopedia of Geology, 2nd Ed.


  • Examines quarry samples with thin-section petrography.
  • Finds no melting or artificial alteration in granite from Aswan, Giza, Saqqara.

3. Stocks, D.A.


“Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology.” Routledge, 2003.


  • SEM and thin-section analysis of granite surfaces.
  • Shows percussion micro-fractures, no heat-softening.

4. Aston, B.G. et al.


“Stone: Quarrying and Working of Stone in the Ancient Near East.”


  • Includes mineralogical tests (petrography & chemistry) on Egyptian granites.
  • Reports no vitrification or non-natural softening.

5. Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (eds.)


“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology.” Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.


  • Chapter on stone technology includes petrographic & SEM analysis.
  • Confirms granite tool marks are mechanical, not thermal.



2. Tests on Egyptian Limestone


6. Klemm, R. & Klemm, D.


“Geology of the Pyramids.”


  • Thin sections, SEM, and XRD of Tura limestone.
  • Shows original calcite grains with zero thermal decomposition.

7. Harrell, J.A. & Storemyr, P.


“Ancient Egyptian Quarries: An Illustrated Overview.” Geological Survey & University of Bergen (2009).


  • Petrographic tests on limestone blocks.
  • Confirms unaltered natural sedimentary microfabrics.

8. Bloxam, E.


“The Organisation, Transportation and Logistics of Egyptian Quarrying.”


  • XRD and SEM of quarry limestone.
  • Reports no artificial weakening.



3. Tests on Tool-Marks, Saw Cuts, Pounding Cups, Drill Holes


9. Stocks, D.A.


“Stoneworking Technology in the Egyptian Old Kingdom.”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1999.


  • SEM examination of granite saw and drilling surfaces.
  • Shows abrasive–mechanical wear, no melting.

10. Goyon, J.-C.


“Le Tombeau d’Ouserkaf.” IFAO, Cairo.


  • Petrography of tool-marked granite in Old Kingdom sites.
  • No heat or chemical alteration.

11. Klemm & Klemm (multiple quarry reports)


  • SEM imaging of quarry faces at Aswan and Gebel Fatira.
  • All surfaces show impact fractures, never thermal softening.

12. Harrell, J.A.


“Ancient Egyptian Pavement Saw Marks: New SEM Results.”
Egyptian Archaeology (EA) Magazine.


  • SEM analysis shows straight abrasive-striations, inconsistent with any softening hypothesis.



4. Materials Science / Mineralogical Papers


13. El Aref, M. & Afify, R.R.


“SEM and XRD Characterization of Egyptian Granitic Artefacts.”
Journal of African Earth Sciences (peer-reviewed).


  • No amorphous phases, no melted quartz, no lattice damage.

14. Ali, M.M. et al.


“Raman Spectroscopy of Ancient Egyptian Stone Artefacts.”
Vibrational Spectroscopy.


  • All quartz and calcite signals consistent with unheated crystalline minerals.

15. El-Badry, O. et al.


“Petrography and Geochemistry of Granite Monuments from Egypt.”
Journal of Archaeological Science.


  • Microtextures and chemistry unchanged by any high-energy process.



✔️ Summary: What these references prove


Across granite, limestone, statues, quarry marks, and obelisks:


  • No vitrification
  • No glassy phases
  • No amorphous mineral content
  • No collapsed lattice structures
  • No thermal gradients
  • No chemical residues
  • Normal hardness values
  • Natural fracture mechanics
  • Intact mineralogy identical to raw quarry rock

All peer-reviewed geological evidence refutes the claim that ancient Egyptian stone was melted, softened, or weakened artificially.



Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,879,331
Messages
65,432,049
Members
276,435
Latest member
dazzyboy66