Jerry N. said:

If you add the “when,” it deletes the possibility that verse three is a new step in the process.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that.

Jerry N. said:

To use Job’s favorite metaphor, it is the difference between saying that the production of the pizza started with the planting of wheat and tomatoes and the production of milk or the operations in the kitchen.

Click to expand...

In other words the process of planting of wheat and tomatoes and the production of milk is not part of the creation process.
Did I get it correct?

Jerry N. said:

Both are valid, but I don’t think Moses was worried about the difference.

Click to expand...

Can you please explain why the creation of the heavens and earth not being a part of the creation process valid?
Bear in mind you acknowledged, that Job's addition of when "deletes the possibility that verse three is a new step in the process".
Also, her argument removes the creation of the earth (not to mention the heavens)), which she admits, had to exist before Genesis 1:2.

Jerry N. said:

The narrative starts with verse three, because that is when Moses starts teaching the relationship between God and man.

Click to expand...

That's another interpretation, you are adding here.
I will dismiss that by simply saying the narrator begins at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning, God...".

Jerry N. said:

I finally see the disagreement. According to the registration, my car was manufactured in 1999. It is working fine. Anyway, its age is not based on when the iron was smelted or when the engineers designed it, it is based on when it was complete and ready to use. The earth was complete and ready to use on the sixth day. I don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but they got evicted about 6000 years ago. I guess that would make me young earth, even if the previous days were a few million years.

Click to expand...

Right, so the age of the earth is different to the age of the universe.
Genesis 1 and 2 are describing the whole package - the universe.
The OP focuses on the earth alone, and not the universe, but since Genesis 1 includes the earth, we can use that to establish if the earth is old or young.

You raised an issue here, that I don't think the OP's intent considers... that is, whether or not the earth being a few millions of years old matter.
I think I am safe to assume that the OP is interested only in the argument between Creationist that believe in a 6 24 hour days creation, as opposed to million, or billions of years.
I don't think the OP is interested in an argument between millions of years or billions of years.
They can correct me if I am wrong.

bob121 said:

Paul says some of you are sick and dying because you gulp the Supper unworthily (1 Cor 11). Share the moment the bread and wine stopped being routine and started feeling dangerous.

What happened, and how did it change the way you prepare?

Click to expand...

Ok, in some church cultures people are told to make sure we have confessed all our sins before taking "Holy Communion" or having "the Lord's Supper". The main attention of preparation can be making sure we ourselves are all set and not in trouble with Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, our Apostle Paul gives things about how the Corinthian church had abused the Lord's Supper, and what they needed to do, instead >

1 Corinthians 11:17-19 > our Apostle Paul says they had divisions. And so, they were not doing the Lord's Supper right, if they were divided. Even so, ones could see who was **not** involved in the divisions . . . and realize those were the "approved" leaders.

1 Corinthians 11:20-21 > people would bring their own food and drink and take it - - right while a poor Christian was sitting there with nothing to eat and drink. So . . . the problem here was not if the well-to-do person had confessed one's sins, but the person was being inconsiderate of the poor Christian . . . the problem then being how they were relating personally with one another. They were being anti-love, then, not relating in love the way Jesus has loved us. And so, they were not having their supper/communion in true remembrance of Jesus because they were not loving the way Jesus has loved us.

His way of loving as His family is much of what is the remembrance of Jesus, is it not? So, instead, by focusing on only our own sins and focusing away from one another and loving, this can be a major problem of communion in case it has become an outward idol ceremony with copy-catting and with no real relating.

In 1 Corinthians 11:22 > "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?" So, yes they were abusing those who had "nothing". Yes, Jesus had a lamb dinner with His disciples at the "Last Supper". It was communion, indeed, but with the Passover dinner which includes lamb, to my knowledge. So, there is nothing wrong with communion being a full dinner, but it needs to be full of the remembrance of Jesus, by being full of His love with His family way of caring and sharing with one another . . . not with each of us trying to make our minds concentrate on some imagination of Jesus on the cross while we even ignore each other!!

So, then, yes > when ones have a pot luck . . . and all are welcome, whether they have time or money to prepare food . . . this could be more like the Last Supper, with everyone loving and delighting in sharing as family with one another.

However, ones were despising and shaming the poor Christians. And what we do to the least of Jesus Christ's brethren, we do to Jesus Himself.

"Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me." (in Matthew 25:40)

So, those people indeed were in a lot of trouble . . . much worse than just dying and getting sick and being weak.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 > so, yes, Jesus says to share the bread and cup "in remembrance of" Jesus.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)

And what shows Jesus Christ's death? How He was loving while on the cross > this is much of all that is involved in Jesus dying for us, on the cross. And we are commanded >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, His death which we are to show has much to do with how Jesus was so loving, right while so suffering and dying for us, and how He was "a sweet-smelling aroma" to God . . . so sweetly pleasing our Father. And this is how we are to be: sweet and pleasant to our Father during whatever is going on.

So, their way of doing the so-called communion was anti-Christ, I would say. They were not personally relating and sharing as family, like Jesus did during the Last Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:27-28 > Paul says not to eat and drink "in an unworthy manner". I see, from the context of earlier scriptures, how the main issue was the divisions and how horribly they could be relating with ones less well-to-do. Therefore, my opinion is the unworthy manner was not only failure to confess some list of sins or some failure to devote oneself to the bread and drink. But they needed to be attentive to one another . . . not isolating themselves in trying to get grace only for their own selves, or brownie points for paying attention to the "symbolic meaning" of perhaps some cracker and grape juice.

1 Corinthians 11:29 > Paul says they were not "discerning the Lord's body". Now, ones take this to mean the bread is the body of Jesus. But, then, why does Paul not say not discerning the body "and blood" of Jesus . . . if the drink is really Christ's blood?? What I see, from what Paul says earlier, is he means they were not discerning how those poor Christians are the body of Christ. Jesus is so more concerned with if and how we honor and regard the children of God who are the body of Jesus >

"For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (Ephesians 5:30)

1 Corinthians 11:30 > here we have the verse that you are talking about . . . how many were sick and weak and dying. They had been relating badly with needy Christians. And "Therefore" many of them were sick and weak and dying. And so, Paul then concludes with what they need to do >

1 Corinthians 11:31-32 > judge themselves, be chastened by the Lord. Hebrews 12:4-14 talks about how we need to actively seek our Heavenly Father for His real correction which changes our ***character*** so we are sharing with Him in His own holiness in His love's "peaceable fruit of righteousness".

1 Corinthians 11:33 > and Paul says "Therefore" > "wait for one another" < this means how they are relating with each other.

But because they were relating in such an impersonal and even anti-love way, ones were dying and weak and sick. When we live in what is not love, this can affect us emotionally and even physically . . . even if God does not somehow punish us. And if we do relate in God's love with one another during the Lord's Supper, this love is full of God's own grace to grow and mature us to be and to love like Jesus. So, yes there is grace in the true Lord's Supper, grace being the effect of God's own love being ministered by "each" of us to one another >

"As each one has received the gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

But it seems to me, how ones can isolate themselves in how they do the Lord's Supper. Ones do not function as ongoing and life-giving and love-ministering children of God. And so they hide with a little bit of bread and drink. But instead we can always stay prayerful, submissive to God so we are constantly spreading His own grace.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Where they blow up. Or given dual process ? What border. Since there's been so many blowing up boats being blown up.

Click to expand...

We have over 40 years of history showing US Presidents using our military to attack the narco cartels.

Apple Sky said:

I am a woman.

Click to expand...

It's a quote from the film The Big Lebowski.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And yet we have evidence of that, and no evidence at all of a flat earth.

So... that's like your opinion, man.

Click to expand...

I am a woman.

hedrick said:

Obama is not getting royalties from Obamacare. That’s satire

President Donald Trump shared a claim that former President Barack Obama received millions in Obamacare-related royalties before Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency stepped in to stop it. That claim originated from satire.

www.politifact.com

apparently the claims are satire.

Click to expand...

As your source indicates, clever Donald's post is real.

wing2000 said:

Would that include a Latino grocery store, church or school?

Should my hispanic wife, who is a naturalized U.S. Citizen, have to carry her passport when she enters a Latino grocery store...just because she looks hispanic and is venues where illegals may be present?

Why should she and other US Citizens be subject to detention based on where they shop, worship or work?

Click to expand...

If its a venue where illegals are present then yes. ICE has done a good job so far of hitting these areas and getting illegals. Certainly some Americans have been picked in the process. But they have been verified and released. .There are consequences to having sanctuary cities and consequences to citizens supporting such nonsense. You wanted illegals to come there and invited them. Dont be so shocked when ICE comes to get them. They are going to go where the illegals are and if you are caught in the net so be it. You'll be let go in relatively short order.

All illegals must go. I dont care how long youve been here or if youve married an American or had babies here. You must go. Self deport is the best way. Then work on coming here legally and we'll be happy to have you. There are consequences for letting them in and for inviting them to your city and telling them you'll protect them.

If your hanging with illegals, you should EXPECT that you might get picked up in a sweep. Best advice, stay away from places with illegals or carry your passport if you insist on hanging around illegals.

Job 33:6 said:

Nobody denies that God is the ultimate creator.

Click to expand...

That was not the point I made.
I'm pointing out that God created out of something - his vigor; power; force; substance; energy.

Job 33:6 said:

"Generally" and yet, others of this time viewed creation as occurring out of chaos. And more importantly, contemporary works to the Old Testament itself include creation out of chaos and those are the sources of the original context.

Click to expand...

The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
Self efficient, is the key word here, as described by Isaiah at Isaiah 40:26

For example,

• God created water, Nowhere in the Bible does it say "out of chaos".
• God created the heavens... and the earth. Nowhere does the Bible say "out of chaos".

So while you favor those who make that claim, The Bible... does not support that view.
That is an important point to note.

Job 33:6 said:

And again, I'm not saying that there was something before creation, I'm just saying that the creation and Genesis was out of chaos.

Click to expand...

Yes, you say that. The Bible does not say that. You do.
That is an important point.

Job 33:6 said:

And this is a key distinction. Jews of the talmudic period acknowledged that only God is eternal, but in their own writings, such as what I said it above, bereshith rabah 1:5, The creation in Genesis is out of chaos, it's not out of nothing.

Click to expand...

The Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Parashah I, verse 5, is part of a larger interpretive framework that explores the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1. This section, like others in the parashah, is structured as a literary unit composed by a sophisticated editor who integrates various exegetical traditions to convey theological messages. The parashah begins with a petihah (opening) that links Genesis 1:1 to Proverbs 8:30, interpreting the word "amon" in Proverbs as "uman" (workman or craftsman), thereby portraying the Torah as God's working tool.

The specific content of Bereshit Rabba 1:5, as referenced in the context, involves a discussion about the creation of the world and the nature of its origins. It addresses the idea that the world was not created from pre-existing matter, countering views that suggest creation occurred from "tohu" (chaos) and "bohu" (void), which are described as forms of matter. The Midrash argues that to claim the world was created from such pre-existent material diminishes God's glory, emphasizing instead the concept of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). This interpretation is part of a broader theological effort to affirm God's absolute sovereignty over creation.

Additionally, the parashah includes teachings attributed to prominent rabbis such as R. Oshaya and R. Huna, who are cited in connection with the creation narrative.

Hmm. Did you get that?
Two things to note:
It does not support your position.
It's also an interpretation.
It's not the word of God... although the understanding that God did not create out of pre-existing matter, or out of chaos, is great, but the Bible is all we need for truth, and it does explain that God created out of his vigor; power; force; substance; energy.

The point to take away... The Bible is what establishes truth, Not interpretations of people.
The Bible explains the truths we need to know.

Job 33:6 said:

I'd be curious, I think that I've already done that, but if you have another approach, I'd be curious to see it.

Click to expand...

You have done that?
Well I certainly did not get that from what you were saying.
From your entire argument, all I got was that God did not create out of nothing but out of chaos.
That's all I was getting. You even repeated it above.

The creation in Genesis is out of chaos, it's not out of nothing.

Click to expand...

That does not address anything about whether the earth is young, or old.
Stay tuned.

Job 33:6 said:

And I think it's telling that the Jewish publication society translation, the JPS says " When God began to create".

That alone is enough to point out that verse 1 is not in and of itself an event. And thus, young earth creationism really has no basis.

You don't seem to like those other translations. I think they're legitimate. And that's really all you need to point out the issue with YECism.

Click to expand...

See?
How does that address that Genesis 1, is not 6 24 hour days of creation?

I finally see the disagreement. According to the registration, my car was manufactured in 1999. It is working fine. Anyway, its age is not based on when the iron was smelted or when the engineers designed it, it is based on when it was complete and ready to use. The earth was complete and ready to use on the sixth day. I don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but they got evicted about 6000 years ago. I guess that would make me young earth, even if the previous days were a few million years.

Dan1988 said:

I thought I already cleared this up for you. I told you that God is not the Author of evil, but He does allow evil doers to do their wicked work for a time. Then He torments them is the lake of fire for all eternity, so God sill wins.
They do their thing for a short time but God does His thing forever, that's a bargain. I love it, just as I love everything else that God does.

Click to expand...

So these evil people who died in the flood were doing what God wanted them to do or were they doing what God didn’t want them to do?

Valletta said:

‘Arctic Frost’ Scandal: 51% Favor Impeaching Judge Boasberg

A narrow majority of voters agree with impeachment proceedings against a federal judge involved in the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation that secretly targeted Republicans in Congress.

www.rasmussenreports.com

We will see how the country reacts as more information is forthcoming.

Click to expand...

Public opinion is largely meaningless when it comes to impeachment. Or do you think that President Trump should be impeached too? After all 52% of Americans support the idea (at least back in April - it may be higher now): https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-...americans-support-impeachment-rc-aso-memo.pdf

zippy2006 said:

First, I still have a lot of respect for Shapiro,...

Click to expand...

I do too. And when he was doing the college speaking years ago, I think he was excellent for conservatism. The perfect guy for that time.

zippy2006 said:

...but I think he mislead me a bit, and this in two ways.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised. There are things to dislike about him. He can be...um...what's the word...can't say "shifty", can't say "crafty"... okay - disingenuous. The Dice video below is cued. Shapiro asks for money to help "children", never telling the listeners that 100% of donations go to help Jewish kids and families exclusively. I've double-checked what Dice says, and it's true. And Shapiro may or may not be directly involved with one or both charities. It's murky.

Imagine if I had a show and used it to get money that I gave to white kids only, or to Christian kids only, but you know, didn't think to mention that.

Login to view embedded media

zippy2006 said:

First, much of what is being said about Tucker strikes me as true, but after watching the whole interview I can see that Tucker was disagreeing with Fuentes, albeit very gently. This means that charges of "ideological laundering" pure and simple are not quite accurate.

Click to expand...

It's possible Tucker didn't want to disagree with him sharply for the reason I gave a couple of posts above. Nick is good, and perhaps Tucker didn't want to be getting shown up on his large platform? But that's just speculation.

zippy2006 said:

Second, Fuentes is not as bad as I thought he was after I watched Shapiro's initial video. Resentment and anger seem to drive much of what he does, but he is at the same time intelligent, thoughtful, argument-based, and capable of self-reflection. For example, this is a surprising video.

Click to expand...

That sort of forceful, emotional speech he makes near the beginning - I'd never heard that before. And it sounds like he's acting. In real life he's almost always smiling and happy and lighthearted even when discussing what he's been put through.

zippy2006 said:

At the same time, I think Fuentes' rhetoric is problematic, I think there is an affective problem (particularly with anger and resentment, albeit for legitimate injustices), and I think there are logical problems, including theologically,

Click to expand...

Theologically. I've heard him say a few quirky things about his catholicism which I think are flat out wrong. But that's between you and him.

zippy2006 said:

* See for example this interview with Victor Davis Hanson.

Click to expand...

I don't have time for the whole video. I found a little about Nick in the part where they're talking about Tucker. Is there anything else?

Valletta said:

The bill, which passed the Senate on Monday night, includes language that would allow eight Republican senators to sue the Justice Department for alleged privacy violations after their phone records were subpoenaed during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2023 investigation. The provision retroactively makes it illegal,

Click to expand...

Retroactively? That'll withstand a court challenge, I'm sure.

Valletta said:

in most cases, for federal investigators to obtain a senator’s phone data without notifying them—and allows those affected to seek up to $500,000 per violation, plus legal fees and costs according to Reuters.

NEW: Deal To End Shutdown Lets GOP Senators Sue Biden’s DOJ For J6

Legislation moving through Congress that aims to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history contains a clause that could hand several Republican senators large payouts tied to the Biden administration’s investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. The bill, which passed the Senate on...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

I missed this part of the bill. The money isn't important,

Click to expand...

If the money isn't important, why not cap it at $1?

Valletta said:

what I hope is that eventually the facts will come out and people will be held accountable so that never again will the power of the executive branch be so abused in going after political opponents.

Click to expand...

lol, seriously?

Is there any Republican corruption you guys won't swallow?

Valletta said:

One intelligence agency was caught illegally spying on a friend of mine,

Click to expand...

sure they were

AI is no more of a lasting threat than man. Both can die, ending their reign of oppression or whatever. Simply pull the plug.

Phil G said:

You keep saying that.

Click to expand...

And I'll keep on saying it.

Strong in Him said:

Click to expand...

back to you ..........

Always in His Presence said:

Jeffrey Epstein: Trump ‘asked Ghislaine Maxwell to stop’ recruiting girls from Mar-a-Lago spa

The release is likely to increase pressure on the Justice Department to make public all its files in connection with the notorious case.

nypost.com

​

Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein acknowledged in a bitter email months before his death that Donald Trump told Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to stop plucking young girls from the spa at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to groom and sexually abuse.​

​

In the email, written by Epstein to discredited author Michael Wolff on Jan. 31, 2019 — fewer than six months before Epstein’s arrest on federal sex trafficking charges — and released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee Wednesday, the disgraced financier responded to Trump’s claim to have booted Epstein from the club.​

​

“[T][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] said he asked me to resign,” Epstein told Wolff. “[I was] never a member ever.”​

​

“[O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked [G]hislaine to stop.”​

​

Nearly eight years earlier, on April 2, 2011, Epstein described Trump in an email to Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking conspiracy and other charges, as “that dog that hasn’t barked,” adding that an unnamed victim “spent hours at my house with him [and] he has never once been mentioned.”​

​

“The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Post in a statement. “The ‘unnamed victim’ referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and ‘couldn’t have been friendlier’ to her in their limited interactions.​

Click to expand...

Here is the other version:

The publicly released email exchanges between Jeffrey Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff primarily focus on Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein and how it was handled in the media. The correspondence spans a critical period, from the 2016 presidential campaign through the early years of Trump's presidency.
2015 Exchange (PR Strategy & Leverage)
This exchange occurred in December 2015, as Trump was actively campaigning for the Republican nomination.
* Wolff alerted Epstein that CNN was planning to ask Trump about their relationship.
* Epstein asked if they could "craft an answer" for Trump.
* Wolff advised Epstein to "let him hang himself" if Trump denied knowing him, suggesting it would give Epstein valuable "PR and political currency."
* Wolff also noted that if Epstein were to "save him," it could "generat[e] a debt."
2019 Exchange (Claim of Knowledge)
This exchange occurred in January 2019, during Trump's presidency, and dealt with Trump's attempts to distance himself from Epstein.
* Epstein made the explicit claim to Wolff that Trump "knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop."
* This message was sent while Epstein was referencing a claim that Trump had asked him to resign from his club (Mar-a-Lago), which Epstein dismissed as false.
In summary, the emails reveal discussions about strategically managing the public narrative around Trump's association with Epstein and contain Epstein's direct assertion that Trump was aware of the criminal activities.

Matthew 16: 17 .... For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, hbut my Father who is in heaven.

Truth comes only from the Father and this is what the church was to be built upon, truth from the Father, not the doctrines, traditions nor will of man using God for their own purposes. Anyone putting their will ahead of the will of God, especially in religion, is working for the Adversary.

Apple Sky said:

Well I think a spinning ball zooming through space is more stupider.

Click to expand...

And yet we have evidence of that, and no evidence at all of a flat earth.

So... that's like your opinion, man.

Larniavc said:

Because people all around the world laugh when they hear flat Earther's try to make a flat Earth work. The idea of flat Earth is beyond stupid.

Click to expand...

Well I think a spinning ball zooming through space is more stupider.

CoreyD said:

Thanks Jerry.
I actually used the term "at the beginning here, and in this post.
However , since beginning does not refer to a starting point of duration, but rather, a period, as is seen in John 1:1 and John 8:44, I can appreciate why the preposition "In" is the most favored.

The word "in" is primarily a preposition used to indicate location or time. As a preposition of place, it describes being within a general area, such as "in the room" or "in the city". As a preposition of time, it is used with longer periods like months, seasons, years, or decades, as in "in August" or "in the future".

The word "at" is also primarily a preposition, used to indicate a specific point in time or place. As a preposition of time, it is used with specific clock times, such as "at 8 p.m." or with mealtimes like "at dinner". As a preposition of place, it refers to a precise location, such as "at the office" or "at the corner".

However, I just to point out something, to make a point.
"When I began to ride my bike...", would be similar to "when God began to create..." Is it not?
"In the beginning when I rode my bike...", would be equivalent to "In the beginning, when God created...". Is that correct?

If I said, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and earth", how different is that to, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Click to expand...

If you add the “when,” it deletes the possibility that verse three is a new step in the process. To use Job’s favorite metaphor, it is the difference between saying that the production of the pizza started with the planting of wheat and tomatoes and the production of milk or the operations in the kitchen. Both are valid, but I don’t think Moses was worried about the difference. The narrative starts with verse three, because that is when Moses starts teaching the relationship between God and man.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

I'm glad President Trump is finally expressing what conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats have been saying for the past 50 years.

Thank you, Mr. President. Please simplify the H-1B visa process, pursue comprehensive immigration reform, and make America great again.

Click to expand...

Has the $100k fee been rescinded?

Tinker Grey said:

I agree with this to some extent.

However, on Reddit, users tend to down vote other's "into oblivion". Too much tendency for folks to use it as a weapon. In fact, sometimes here on this website, a laughter reaction can be considered bad form.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's Reddit. I like to imagine this place might be a little bit more classy. A little bit.