Latest activity

Jerry N. · 2025-11-20T03:35:22-0600

Apple Sky said:
My personal problems have nothing to do with this thread or F/E.

That wasn't my point.

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-20T03:33:25-0600

d taylor said:
-

There are no other verses supporting Job 26:7 to be translated this way.

Hang which is the Hebrew word teleh
Means to hang, suspend, or support by actual contact. never to hang on nothing: thus, to give a few instances/examples

Genesis 40:19 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head from you and hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from you.”

Psalms 137:2 We hung our harps Upon the willows in the midst of it.

Ezekiel 15:3 Is wood taken from it to make any object? Or can men make a peg from it to hang any vessel on?

Job 26:7 using (supporteth the Earth upon fastenings (foundations) )." is supported by other areas of The Bible as a few times God states in The Bible, the earth is set upon foundations.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Job 38:6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,

Psalms 104:5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,

But the word belimeh wrongly translated "nothing" is the crucial word. Our translators appear to have derived it from the noun blee, signifying consumption or desolation, and the pronoun meh, who which what, but the meaning "nothing" drawn from these words, seems to be very far fetched. Hebrew is a very ancient language, to all probability the most ancient of any, and this being the only place in the Bible where the word belimeh occurs, it is, of course, difficult to test the meaning. I (David Wardlaw Scott) have myself, however, not the slightest doubt, that Parkhurst is right in deriving the noun belimeh from the verb belem, to confine, restrain, or hold in, so used in
Psalm 32:9 Do not be like the horse or like the mule, Which have no understanding, Which must be harnessed(belem) with bit and bridle, Else they will not come near you.

and that belimeh simply means "fastenings," or "supports," and this interpretation exactly agrees with what Godh asked Job a little farther on in

Job 38:6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone

So verses like Job 38:6 support Job 26:7 to be translated from the Hebrew as

"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings."

And not, hang on nothing, as there is no other verse supporting this "hang on nothing"

Well it’s interesting that the harnessing of a mule or a horse is similar to that of the opposite of wisdom.

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-20T03:25:49-0600

You can check my link for the difference between chokmah and blimah.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-20T03:22:17-0600

Jerry N. said:
I’m not saying that you don’t want help with whatever problems you might have personally,

My personal problems have nothing to do with this thread or F/E.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-20T03:16:42-0600

David Lamb said:
The Ouroboros snake represents the cycle of life, not Antarctica.

I asked - Does the ouroboros symbolize the encircling of the earth.

The answer;

AI Overview

Yes, in several ancient mythologies and belief systems, a world-encircling serpent or dragon that bites its own tail (an ouroboros motif) is a central figure.

Jerry N. · 2025-11-20T03:06:21-0600

Apple Sky said:
Says who ? @prodromos has helped me understand flight paths on a globe which in turn helps me to figure out why F/E's say the opposite.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.

I don’t know what the cover looks like. However, I know that you tend to just deny things you disagree with without giving proper consideration. For example, I gave you a list of 15 things that have been presented on this thread, and three more have been added. Your answers are almost always something like “No, it is not true.” You ask for photographic proof, and then say they are probably bogus when they are given. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to you, but you are not making rebuttals that indicate a sincere desire to understand. I’m not saying that you don’t want help with whatever problems you might have personally, but I am saying you don’t want help in understanding that the earth is a globe.

Strong in Him · 2025-11-20T03:01:10-0600

Apple Sky said:
Says who ?

You.
You have said that, even with evidence, you will not believe certain things.

David Lamb · 2025-11-20T02:56:20-0600

Apple Sky said:
It is a symbol & it's called the ' Ouroboros.'

AI
Ouroboros, a serpent coiled in a ring around the Earth and biting it's own tail is a symbol.

But it's not a symbol of Antarctica.

Strong in Him · 2025-11-20T02:55:12-0600

Apple Sky said:
Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Nobody here judges you by your "cover", but by your words and by your behaviour.

David Lamb · 2025-11-20T02:55:05-0600

Apple Sky said:
As Antarctica encircles the earth like a ring.

Why do think they have the laurel leaves encircling the map on the UN logo ?

View attachment 373386

Don't you remember, that this has been explained before? The olive branches represent peace, not Antarctica.

Apple Sky said:
A symbol of the Ouroboros snake which encircles the earth
The Elite know the earth is flat but just wont admit it.

The Ouroboros snake represents the cycle of life, not Antarctica.

Why pick the UN symbol and the snake? Why not claim that a hula hoop or a quoit or a wedding ring represent Antarctica? There are plenty of things that are ring-shaped, but they don't mean that Antarctica encircles the earth.

zoidar · 2025-11-20T02:46:46-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
I'm tiring of this assertive approach of yours. I'm going to be direct with you.

Your replies continue to fire off unsupported assertions while avoiding the actual point I have pressed from the beginning. You keep circling back to abstractions about "essentialism," "metaphysics," and "semantic fallacies," but none of these touch the argument I have explicitly grounded in the syntax of the text. At this stage, I'm not going to keep chasing every passing sentence you throw out

If you intend to continue, you need to engage the syntactical argument itself. If you will not, then this conversation has reached the end of its usefulness.

Here is the argument you must address:

John predicates δύναται of the subject (οὐδεὶς). The construction expresses a personal capacity or incapacity, not an environmental condition. That is simply the function of δύναται in Greek grammar. "You're reading a non-standard understanding of "ability"" is an unsubstantiated claim. I already challenged you to defend it. You won't. You insist on reading English conceptual models into a discussion of Greek semantics and syntax. That's not a serious contribution to our exchange.

John 6:44 presents a conditional structure: ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται. The Father's drawing is the stated condition that generates the person's ability to come.

John gives no secondary effect for drawing, no third category such as "general atmospheric possibility," and no indication that drawing may occur without producing the predicate ability he assigns to it.

Therefore, if drawing occurs and ability does not arise, the conditional statement is false. The text leaves no space for a drawing that fails to accomplish the one effect John attaches to it.

The final clause of the verse ("and I will raise him up on the last day") grammatically ties the raising to the granting of the capacity to come to Christ. It is the one who is granted this ability who is promised salvation.

That is the entire argument. It is grammatical, not metaphysical. It is structural, not theological. And it stands or falls on the text, not on accusations of "essentialism." Your use of that term reveals a fundamental misunderstanding -- either of my argument or of the concept itself. At no point have I argued that words possess immutable, metaphysical senses, or that meaning is fixed by nature rather than by usage. The argument I gave concerning δύναται was based on its usage in Classical and Koine literature. Deploying terminology like "essentialism" here is just swinging a hammer in search of a nail. It attempts to land a critique where none exists and distracts from the syntactic reality the text actually presents.

The bottom line is there is no point to this exchange if you can't go to the text and deal with what's there in the grammar. I will not respond again unless you do so. Dispute the grammar. Show where δύναμαι functions as an imported condition detached from the subject. Show where John permits drawing without producing the predicate ability. Show where the conditional structure may be broken without rendering the sentence false. And show where the one raised is not explicitly identified as the one granted the ability to come.

If you cannot or will not do that, then the discussion is over. I'm not interested in an endless loop of assertions that never touch the text, and will regard the next round of them as a tacit concession to the argument I laid out above.

Maybe you should have this discussion with a Koine Greek scholar? It would probably give you a better answer than you get here on the forum.

truthuprootsevil · 2025-11-20T02:46:25-0600

Login to view embedded media
All the government employees who has lost their jobs, programs to help citizens of the US dismantled or lessened in efforts. Supposedly to decrease government spending! What is this totally unnecessary spending, wait that's all Trump does spend taxpayers money on things that interest him, into the billions, before he leaves office probably a trillion.

The Saudi Prince is of interest to Trump, how many buildings does Trump have in Saudi Arabia? New deals pending!

The Trump Organization eyes real estate deal in Saudi government development: Report | Middle East Eye The Trump Organization eyes real estate deal in Saudi government development: Report

Trump Tower Jeddah Trump Tower Jeddah

Christsfreeservant · 2025-11-20T02:45:40-0600

“O come, let us sing for joy to the Lord,

Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation.

Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving,

Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.

For the Lord is a great God

And a great King above all gods,

In whose hand are the depths of the earth,

The peaks of the mountains are His also.

The sea is His, for it was He who made it,

And His hands formed the dry land.” (Psalm 95:1-5 NASB1995)

Are we to praise our Lord verbally? Yes! Absolutely! Out in the open where others can hear? Sometimes, yes! But not for show. Not as a performance. Not to get attention. But for the purpose of sharing Christ with the people of the world, and for sharing with them the gospel of our salvation so that they can come to know the Lord, too. But under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, as being led by the Spirit in what to do, and how to do it, and in what to say, so that it never becomes a flashy performance to please flesh.

And just because we sing or shout praises to the Lord with our lips, it does not necessarily mean that we are truly praising or worshiping the Lord. For we can sing and shout all kinds of praises and thanksgivings to the Lord with our lips and it mean nothing to God if our lives are not surrendered to him in obedience to him and to his commands in holy living. For our true praise to the Lord is in how we live, and in what we do in service and in obedience to him and to his teachings. So the verbal must match with how we live.

For, if we are truly rejoicing in the Lord, it needs to be in truth and in righteousness, as evidenced by our submission to the Lordship of Christ over our lives. And our joy needs to be based in the reality of changed lives which have been transformed of the Holy Spirit out of living in sin and for self, to now living for God in obedience to his commands in holy living. And we should be thankful to the Lord for rescuing us out of our sinful lifestyles so that we can now live holy lives, which are pleasing to our God, in his power.

For, because you attend a “worship service” or a large gathering of people who are all singing “worship songs,” it does not necessitate that any true worship of God is taking place. For true worship of God is in presenting our bodies to God as living sacrifices to God, acceptable to God, which is our spiritual worship of God. And it involves us no longer being conformed to the ways of this sinful world, but us being transformed of God in the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what the will of God is (see Romans 12:1-2).

For our Lord is the only great God who is King above all that are called gods, but are not God. And he is completely sovereign over all that he has made and that he has brought into being. Everything is under his ultimate control, not that he has anything ever to do with evil, but he does presently allow evil to exist, and he allows people to do evil things, not in giving them approval to do evil, though. But he ultimately has control over all that is on the earth, or that is part of this world, including all who live on the earth.

And he serves as Judge and Jury over all that he has made, too. Therefore, he is not fooled by false performances of thanksgiving, praise, and adoration to our Lord, in word or in song, which are lip service only, but which are not followed up with dying to sin and living for God in walks of obedience to his commands. For he requires of us who profess the name of Jesus that we deny self, die to sin daily, and that we walk (in conduct) in obedience to his commands, or we do not have salvation from sin and eternal life with God.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Oh, to Be Like Thee, Blessed Redeemer

Lyrics by Thomas O. Chisholm, 1897
Music by W. J. Kirkpatrick, 1897

Oh, to be like Thee! blessèd Redeemer,
This is my constant longing and prayer;
Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures,
Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.

Oh, to be like Thee! full of compassion,
Loving, forgiving, tender and kind,
Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting,
Seeking the wandering sinner to find.

O to be like Thee! lowly in spirit,
Holy and harmless, patient and brave;
Meekly enduring cruel reproaches,
Willing to suffer others to save.

O to be like Thee! while I am pleading,
Pour out Thy Spirit, fill with Thy love;
Make me a temple meet for Thy dwelling,
Fit me for life and Heaven above.

Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee,
Blessèd Redeemer, pure as Thou art;
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

Sing for Joy to The Lord
An Original Work / November 20, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Apple Sky · 2025-11-20T02:44:59-0600

Jerry N. said:
I don’t think she wants help.

Says who ? @prodromos has helped me understand flight paths on a globe which in turn helps me to figure out why F/E's say the opposite.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-20T02:37:25-0600

Ride Kramer's car before nightfall.

NATOS

Jerry N. · 2025-11-20T02:31:24-0600

prodromos said:
Not, unfortunately, to the one who needs it. I have very little patience and neglect to humble myself.

I don’t think she wants help. However, your input has made this thread enjoyable. It has been fun trying to come up with various proofs for a spherical earth, and you have been helpful.

Yarddog · 2025-11-20T02:26:49-0600

Vambram said:
However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military.

Courts have too.

Vambram said:
I've been in the US military for more than 27 years and I have more trust in President Trump than any other President whom has been my Commander-in-Chief.

That your right but plenty of military men have condemned his actions. Of course, we have had much to choose from in the past 27 years, including Trump

Vambram said:
President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.

The courts say that he already has.

Court Finds Trump’s Use of Soldiers in Los Angeles Is Illegal

The historic ruling shows how states can push back against the president’s use of the military as a domestic police force.

www.brennancenter.org

Strong in Him · 2025-11-20T02:22:33-0600

Apple Sky said:
It is a symbol & it's called the ' Ouroboros.'

AI
Ouroboros, a serpent coiled in a ring around the Earth and biting it's own tail is a symbol.

No it isn't.
A symbol of what - flat earth stupidity?

Apple Sky · 2025-11-20T02:19:25-0600

Strong in Him said:
More nonsense. The earth is encircled by a snake, now?

It is a symbol & it's called the ' Ouroboros.'

AI
Ouroboros, a serpent coiled in a ring around the Earth and biting it's own tail is a symbol.

Yarddog · 2025-11-20T02:18:36-0600

johansen said:
not the ones i know.

They do around here. My sister-in-law just retired from nursing.

Bradskii · 2025-11-20T02:15:37-0600

Fervent said:
All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".

Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.

Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Fervent · 2025-11-20T02:05:57-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
I'm tiring of this assertive approach of yours. I'm going to be direct with you.

Your replies continue to fire off unsupported assertions while avoiding the actual point I have pressed from the beginning. You keep circling back to abstractions about "essentialism," "metaphysics," and "semantic fallacies," but none of these touch the argument I have explicitly grounded in the syntax of the text. At this stage, I'm not going to keep chasing every passing sentence you throw out

If you intend to continue, you need to engage the syntactical argument itself. If you will not, then this conversation has reached the end of its usefulness.

Here is the argument you must address:

John predicates δύναται of the subject (οὐδεὶς). The construction expresses a personal capacity or incapacity, not an environmental condition. That is simply the function of δύναται in Greek grammar. "You're reading a non-standard understanding of "ability"" is an unsubstantiated claim. I already challenged you to defend it. You won't. You insist on reading English conceptual models into a discussion of Greek semantics and syntax. That's not a serious contribution to our exchange.

John 6:44 presents a conditional structure: ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται. The Father's drawing is the stated condition that generates the person's ability to come.

John gives no secondary effect for drawing, no third category such as "general atmospheric possibility," and no indication that drawing may occur without producing the predicate ability he assigns to it.

Therefore, if drawing occurs and ability does not arise, the conditional statement is false. The text leaves no space for a drawing that fails to accomplish the one effect John attaches to it.

The final clause of the verse ("and I will raise him up on the last day") grammatically ties the raising to the granting of the capacity to come to Christ. It is the one who is granted this ability who is promised salvation.

That is the entire argument. It is grammatical, not metaphysical. It is structural, not theological. And it stands or falls on the text, not on accusations of "essentialism." Your use of that term reveals a fundamental misunderstanding -- either of my argument or of the concept itself. At no point have I argued that words possess immutable, metaphysical senses, or that meaning is fixed by nature rather than by usage. The argument I gave concerning δύναται was based on its usage in Classical and Koine literature. Deploying terminology like "essentialism" here is just swinging a hammer in search of a nail. It attempts to land a critique where none exists and distracts from the syntactic reality the text actually presents.

The bottom line is there is no point to this exchange if you can't go to the text and deal with what's there in the grammar. I will not respond again unless you do so. Dispute the grammar. Show where δύναμαι functions as an imported condition detached from the subject. Show where John permits drawing without producing the predicate ability. Show where the conditional structure may be broken without rendering the sentence false. And show where the one raised is not explicitly identified as the one granted the ability to come.

If you cannot or will not do that, then the discussion is over. I'm not interested in an endless loop of assertions that never touch the text, and will regard the next round of them as a tacit concession to the argument I laid out above.

Your entire argument depends on your assessment of a single Greek word, and it does so by importing foreign import into that term. You may tire of my assertive approach, but I am so assertive because you have already provided the primary ammunition against your own argument in a source that you don't seem to understand. So if you can't even understand your own sources, why am I going to take the time and spell out the error that I am primarily drawing from that source to push? You are putting far too much stock into grammatical structures as if doing so is the same as exegesis, or is primary in exegesis. You are simply putting too much import on a premise that is extremely weak, and repeating the argument as if it hasn't already been addressed because you don't seem to understand what you are being told.

Fervent · 2025-11-20T02:00:02-0600

Bradskii said:
As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.

All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".

Bradskii said:
No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.

Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.

biblelesson · 2025-11-20T01:58:19-0600

d taylor said:
-

What are you reading, Matthew 7 is not a parable. The parables of Jesus do not start till chapter 13.

As for these people you know i do not know them so i have no idea what they believe or what they have placed their faith in. But if they have believed in Jesus for Eternal Life, then they are a permanent born again child of God.

Matthew 7:13 was a warning to those who professed Jesus, but depended on works.

So, how does a person believe on Jesus for eternal life if eternal life comes by way of Jesus?

Another way of asking this question; if eternal life is given only by One, and that is Christ, then how does my believing on Christ affords me the responsibility of giving myself eternal life?

John 3:15 KJV
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We are commanded to believe on Him - and through our believe, we receive eternal life from Him. Yet, to believe on Him is not simply a mental agreement that He is the savior and my sins are forgiven. It’s more than that! To believe on Him is to believe all of Him, to include obeying His words, which we learn we cannot obey Him due to our sinful nature. However, He, by His Spirit, must live in us so that we receive His Power to obey, and to be conformed to Him, His image, to express Him in us - then we are children of God!

This is why the gospel tells us to put off the old man and walk according to the Spirit, among other commands - it is the gospel of Christ that is the Power of God unto salvation.

So, how does a person believe unto eternal life without understanding the gospel requirements for salvation? So to say we are to believe unto eternal life is incorrect.

People cannot just say because they believe on Christ they are believing unto eternal life - then they would be giving themselves the credit for eternal life. But, eternal life don’t belong to man, eternal life is given - and without the Spirit of Christ, we cannot receive eternal life.

Through Jesus death and resurrection, and our believing on Him, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, for our inheritance into the Kingdom of God.

Without this sealing by the Holy Spirit, we are not the sons of God. Some who say they believe are sealed - they are the wheat. Some who say they believe are not sealed - they are the tares.

Jesus said let the wheat grow with the tares - and the angels will separate them in the end.

We can talk, preach, cry, try to be good, feed the poor, do all manner of good works, from now until dooms day, and without the Spirit in us - the Spirit that raised Christ Jesus from the dead, we will not receive eternal life. It is by the Spirit that we are sons of God:

John 1;12 KJV, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name".

Romans 8:14 KJV, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God".

When we speak about eternal life, we must let people know the importance of having the Spirit, because without the Spirit we cannot belong to Jesus no matter how much we profess him and tell ourselves our belief is unto eternal life - Romans 8:9 KJV…”Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

RandyPNW · 2025-11-20T01:56:19-0600

JohnB445 said:
this has worried me, do I need to be a Catholic to be saved, or a Protestant? Or does the denomination have nothing to do with it?

Denominations are just a variety of traditions that Christianity has assumed, due to the fact Christianity has penetrated different regions and different cultures. And sometimes Christianity is in decline and needs new movements to reinvigorate what has fallen.

So there are many denominations. Some denominations are in worse condition overall than others. But there may be good local churches in weak denominations. Or, there may be weak congregations in strong denominations.

Salvation is your relationship with Christ. Is his word in your heart, and are you following it day in and day out? Do you know what unconditional love is? Are you willing to maintain love in the face of attack? Are you willing to share the Gospel with those open to it?

Salvation is simply when Christ has "come into your heart," making you aware of your choice for him by the indwelling of his word within your conscience. You know you'r saved when your nature is being changed into the likeness of Christ, albeit imperfectly.

Latest activity

Latest activity

​

A symbol of the Ouroboros snake which encircles the earth​

​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

A symbol of the Ouroboros snake which encircles the earth