B flat B♭
- By Jerry N.
- Conspiracy Theories
- 1624 Replies
That wasn't my point.My personal problems have nothing to do with this thread or F/E.
Upvote
0
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.
That wasn't my point.My personal problems have nothing to do with this thread or F/E.
-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"
I’m not saying that you don’t want help with whatever problems you might have personally,
The Ouroboros snake represents the cycle of life, not Antarctica.
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.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.
You.Says who ?
But it's not a symbol of Antarctica.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.
Nobody here judges you by your "cover", but by your words and by your behaviour.Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Don't you remember, that this has been explained before? The olive branches represent peace, not Antarctica.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
The Ouroboros snake represents the cycle of life, not Antarctica.
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.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:
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.
- 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.
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.
I don’t think she wants help.
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.Not, unfortunately, to the one who needs it. I have very little patience and neglect to humble myself.
Courts have too.However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military.
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 TrumpI'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.
The courts say that he already has.President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.
No it isn't.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.
More nonsense. The earth is encircled by a snake, now?
They do around here. My sister-in-law just retired from nursing.not the ones i know.
Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.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.
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.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:
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.
- 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.
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.
All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".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.
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.No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.
Matthew 7:13 was a warning to those who professed Jesus, but depended on works.-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.
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.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?