David Lamb said:

What many of us say (and I think you have agreed) is that Genesis does not mention the earth's shape.

Click to expand...

But the book of Job does.

Tropical Wilds said:

The difference is you’re looking at their car, saying yours is worse, and thus they don’t deserve food.

Click to expand...

No its about wasting money. I have a lesser car because im buying my own food and thus need to have a lesser car.

The other party has a nicer car because someone else, including me is subsidizing them.

Its about being responsible with our money. Its unethical to take advantage of your neighbors for your own benefit. We have far too many people in America doing that.

Tropical Wilds said:

You’re thinking your total ignorance on how snap is calculated and the assumptions you’re making about what they spend in other areas of their life somehow represents fact.

Click to expand...

Its about waste a fraud. There is too much waste ( getting assistance that don't need it or shouldn't be getting it) and fraud ( people are cheating the system). Im sure you know that happens.

We dont need a lecture on how it works. There are people who are honest and need it. There are people who dont need it or shouldnt have it and there are people who cheat. We want to stop all that and ensure that only those who need it, get it.

Job 33:6 said:

The beginning is when God created the heavens and the earth.

Click to expand...

That's correct.

Job 33:6 said:

But that's not about material origins. It's about the beginning of God's actions.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Job 33:6 said:

Example:
In the beginning when I made a pizza, the pizza was formless and empty.
Or
When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formeless and empty.

Click to expand...

These two statements are not the same.
"When I began", is not the same as "in the beginning".
When I began to make pizza, I had not made pizza. That's quite different to, I made pizza at this time - in the beginning.

Job 33:6 said:

These statements do not say anything about how long the pizza was formless before I began to create it.

Click to expand...

One of those statements expressly say God created the earth. I made the pizza, but it was incomplete.
Pizza is only pizza when it is completed though.. or maybe not. It can be uncooked pizza.
The earth does not need to have "toppings" in order to be physically earth.

Artist's conception of Hadean Eon Earth, when it was much hotter and inhospitable to all forms of life.

Job 33:6 said:

At the time of creation, the earth was formless. But nothing is said about how long the earth was formless before that time.

Click to expand...

At the time of creation, the earth was formless.
That's it!
The earth existed at creation. It was something, but formless, or waste.

The phrase "the earth was formless and empty" in Genesis 1:2 describes the initial state of the earth immediately after its creation, characterized by chaos and lack of order. The Hebrew words used are "tohu" (תֹּהוּ), meaning "formless," "confusion," or "emptiness," and "bohu" (בֹּהוּ), meaning "void," "empty," or "without content". Together, "tohu v’bohu" (תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ) form a compound expression signifying a state of primordial matter that was shapeless, desolate, and devoid of life or structure.
This condition is not the result of a prior creation and destruction, as suggested by the gap theory, but rather the starting point of God's creative work, where the earth existed as an unformed and empty waste before God began to bring order. Darkness covered the surface of the deep, which is described as a chaotic, surging mass of water, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, indicating divine presence and preparation for the act of creation.

Job 33:6 said:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it by giving it form.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Click to expand...

Job 33:6 said:

The beginning is when God began to create the heavens and the earth. It is not about the beginning of the material origins of the universe. Just like, in the beginning when I made/created a pizza, the pizza was formless, doesn't say anything about how long the formless pizza was around before I put it in the oven.

Click to expand...

According to the reading of Genesis, the beginning is when God created the heavens and earth. Not began to.
However, I like your illustration here, since you now need to put the pizza in the oven, to make it just right.

Apple Sky said:

Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone made that claim about Genesis 1. About the Psalms and parts of Job, definitely.
Genesis 1 is revealing God as our creator and our place within His creation. It isn't about teaching physics or chemistry or biology or geography. Anyone focusing on any of those has missed the point entirely.

Chicken curry

keras said:

This is another unfair and unjust criticism.
With the issue of Zechariah 5 and the 12 theories of the OP, it is because I challenge peoples long held beliefs by providing scriptures and modern knowledge to show them to be wrong, that causes upset.

Click to expand...

Not in my case. It's because you have misread and misapplied Scripture

keras said:

But instead of checking my references and making sure of their position, I get the 'knee jerk' rection of flat rejection,

Click to expand...

In my case, I'm talking only about Zechariah 5.
To be fair to you, I had not read this chapter before I read your pronouncements, so you have at least got me to do that.
But it's because I did read it that I reject your interpretation.
From what I can understand, people who are far more knowledgeable than I, also reject your interpretations and teachings. I wouldn't know about those unless you'd told me.

keras said:

You ask questions instead of giving answers.

Click to expand...

So asking questions is "frivolous" is it? How do you expect anyone to learn without asking questions?
Or maybe you just expect us to swallow what you say without question.

How can I give answers when I don't know, and don't believe it is my place to give answers anyway?
I believe, and know, the Lord has shown me many things through his word - "end times teachings" are not one of them.

keras said:

It may just be best to drop this issue and wait for what the Lord intends to do with Iran.

Click to expand...

Well yes.
And if Iran does end up getting a nuclear bomb, firing it and then getting destroyed, or whatever, no doubt you will take delight in the fact that you were "correct".
It doesn't alter that fact that you have read into the text of Zechariah 5, insisted a scroll is the same as a basket and that it is covered in lead which has to refer to a nuclear bomb.

Landon Caeli said:

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder who has spent billions of his own money to raise the alarm about the dangers of climate change, is now pushing back against what he calls a “doomsday outlook” and appears to have shifted his stance on the risks posed by a warming planet.

he wrote. “People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

It arrives a week before world leaders gather in Belém, Brazil, for the United Nations annual climate summit, known this year as COP30. Mr. Gates, who turned 70 on Tuesday and has attended the event in previous years, will not be participating.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/climate/bill-gates-climate-change-humanity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.w08.otzW.hDLZWjtDtQNF&smid=url-share

Click to expand...

When I have more time I will write a more elaborate respond, but for short:
1) Bill Gates isn't a scientist - and certainly not a climatologist
2) I have never seen a scientist claiming that humanity would die out due to global warming
3) Between "not dying" out and "no reason to worry", there is quite a stretch. There is still a lot of room for a lot of suffering.

Apple Sky said:

Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?

Click to expand...

There may for all I know be some here who believe Genesis to be poetic, but There re plenty who believe it to be literally true, that God really did create all things by His almighty powers, just as Genesis 1 & 2 tell us, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, that they disobeyed God's command, and so on. What many of us say (and I think you have agreed) is that Genesis does not mention the earth's shape.

To me Mandami aligns with God's will. In the OT, God would let nations rise up to defeat Israel because he wanted to teach them a lesson. So here is Mandami, being used as a thorn in the side of unbridled capitalism and the love of money in the epicenter of the financial world. I will even suggest that trying to limit funding or aid to NYC is going to backfire. Also, if Mandami fails, the blame will go to Trump anyway. The good news is that politicians better start understanding the needs of everyday America, you know like fixing social security, insuring health care at reasonable rates, reducing inflation and balancing the budget.

Always in His Presence said:

A thread to discuss all the effects of the new Mayor

Parents began planning to take their kids out of NYC schools minutes after Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral win​

Since the results of Tuesday’s election came in, school placement consultant Christopher Rim told The Post he’s had no less than 23 clients reach out to him. They’re looking to relocate — and they want his help getting their kids into elite private high schools and middle schools in other states.

“Within the first 30 minutes of AP announcing Mamdani’s victory, I got three messages from families looking to move,” said Rim, founder and CEO of Command Education.

Click to expand...

Oh no!
.
.
.
Anyway…….

prodromos said:

We do read and believe Genesis 1 as it was meant to be understood.

Click to expand...

Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?

Chesterton said:

Even if I were a pedophile, there's not much I'd be able to do surrounded by a bunch of parents at a football game, you know.

Click to expand...

If a parent even gets a sniff of someone who might be a paedophile they are persona non grata and likely face extra-judicial attention at some point in the future.

Chesterton said:

Was it weird of me to ask to go watch his son play?

Click to expand...

I would think it weird if you said that to me. Yeah, it’s unfair for people to jump to conclusions but that’s how it goes.

Derf said:

According to the account, there were indeed. Because the light that came from the thing made on Day 4 could not have reached the world on Day 1.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Derf said:

The light source from Day 1 might have morphed into the Sun, but the Sun didn't exist before God made is (Day 4)--according to the account.

Click to expand...

The account reads...
14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light [x]to govern the day, and the lesser light [y]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [z]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [aa]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Here, the scriptures speak of lights being placed in the expanse to govern the day and night, and serve as signs, and to separate the light from the darkness.
In Genesis 1:1, we read that God created the heavens and the earth... The heavens referring to that mentioned at Genesis 2:1, 4; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17 which is all the heavens as mentioned at Proverbs 8:27.

So, we don't have to speculate about an unknown light morphing into the sun, which requires us adding a narrative to the text, since we know that the word made does not necessitate something being newly created, but the reading can be taken as objects already in existence being "placed" or made to appear in the expanse, as visible indicators... to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; to serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;.

Bear in mind, too, that you said, " the light had to be separated from the dark".
However, that is referring, not to the source of light, but to the light on the earth.
3...“[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
It's important we carefully read the account to get what is happening, because everything being recorded from verse 2 is in relation to the earth.

Let there be light does not mean, let there be a light source.
Rather, let there be light on the watery deep mentioned in verse 2.
Like this:


Further proof this is the case, is seen in the word for light, being used (אוֹר or).
This is different to the word מָאוֹר maor used for light in verse 14, which refers to the light source - a luminous body.

There are problems from a scriptural perspective of reading Genesis 1:14-18 as an origination of the heavenly bodies... not to mention problems with scientific facts.
It's actually saying that God created the earth as the only body in empty space, and then made everything else.
So, the earth is the oldest object in space, according to such a narrative.
That's both scripturally and scientifically inaccurate. Not true?

When God says, "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath... Isaiah 51:6, what are we seeing?
When David sang, "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." Psalm 19:1, what was David seeing?
Understanding Genesis 1:1 as God creating the heavens and the earth. Then moving on to work on the earth from verse 2, and then make everything just right, will present us an accurate picture, would it not.

Here is an example of this rock softening technology.


On the other hand it could be Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the moon.

“Defendant Bovino admitted that he lied about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village,” Ellis said.

In fact, he was not hit by a rock before lobbing a tear gas canister, without warning, at the crowd, Ellis said, adding that Bovino may have been hit after he threw the tear gas canister. In addition, Bovino fired a second canister at the crowd as people fled the area and posed no threat to anyone, Ellis said.

Ellis pointedly noted that that incident occurred after she ordered agents to issue two warnings before deploying tear gas or other “less lethal” crowd control measures and only when there was a clear threat posed by protesters.

_________

In an interview with the Associated Press published Tuesday, Bovino said “If I had more CS gas, I would have deployed it” during the incident in Little Village.

Ellis said it was actually a flash-bang grenade fired by federal agents, not fireworks thrown by protestors.

In addition, Bovino lied about his conduct outside the Broadview ICE facility, where video shows that he “obviously attacks and tackles” a man, Ellis said.

“But Mr. Bovino, despite watching this video (in his deposition) says that he never used force,” Ellis said.

Hans Blaster said:

No one is rejecting indigenous knowledge of nature. But there is one poster who keeps talking about it and doesn't demonstrate that it has anything to do with the evidence he presents. Instead we get pages of "sources" from people who's ideology goes back through a popular crank author to a book written by a 19th century Minnesota congressman based on a mythical Greek city.

Click to expand...

That's got to be a fallacy in there; appealing to indigenous myths to explain anything is fallacious logic.

Chicken feathers

BCP1928 said:

I don't know about that--there are quite a few people with Christian Nationalist aspirations in the Republican Party. Mike Johnson, for instance, and Pete Hesgeth and many more besides.

Click to expand...

None of them are Christian Nationalists and they don't wish to destroy our country.

peaceful-forest said:

After I was saved, I attended Baptist churches and non-denominational churches. It seems like at the two Baptist churches, whether it was from leadership or other church members, they had this attitude that once you were saved, you didn't matter anymore. What I mean is that the church has too much of a focus on saving lost people. So if a Christian needs something or wants something, it doesn't matter, because "there are more important things to focus on and there's people going to Hell".

Is this anyone else's experience? Are the pastors and/or leadership being taught something in seminary school/Christian colleges/Bible colleges that is encouraging this kind of behavior? Why is it okay to neglect other parts of the church because "people are going to Hell and need to hear the Gospel"?

Click to expand...

What a strange attitude on the part of the church! I have been a Baptist ever since I became a Christian, and have not come across such a thing. Of course a church should be concerned with unsaved people, but church members (including the leaders) should be concerned for their fellow church members. Perhaps you need to discuss how you feel with the leaders.

com7fy8 said:

I think it was Jesus who talked about hypocrites being like tombs full of bones and having white-washed walls.

And Paul had some things to say to hypocritical people. For example > in Romans 2:1-11.

Click to expand...

Yes and I notice this same truth in the Lord prayer when it says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". As though our disposition is not to be judgemental to begin with.

But to be willing to forgive even our enermies or loved ones which can be very hard as well. Without going all ballistic on them lol. Or even persisting with a gruge. Which is completely against the mentality of the culture wars.

com7fy8 said:

I would say, yes, but first make sure we are calling out how we ourselves are wrong. And use this as an example to encourage others to also seek God for real correction.

Click to expand...

Yes 'take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck in another'. Really a life and psychological truth principle. Petersons mentions the 12 steps to a better life as a psychological principles.

The first being "Clean up your room" or your own house first lol. Then you may have achieved some value in maybe helping another. Then go on to be a productive member of the family and society and help others.

But even more so for Christians who proclaim a different way.

Even then I think the major aspect of Christianity is non verbal. The gospel is quite simple and on that alone we can rationalise as a matter of a testimony and faith claim. The rest is subject to that.

So a simple humble and quite disposition exmpling Christ speaks a 1,000 words. When some does say the little they will say. They will be well respected and listened to. It won't be the same old whitenoise of the culture war.

This to a fair extent was how the church and Christians were. A seperate moral voice that was not mixed up in the world. Sought out as wise counsel in moral matters. Until the two got into bed together and the church just became another corrupted power and identity in the world.

In some ways I think identity and culture wars are Pharisees in mindset as its all about the how to be good to earn salvation rather than the core truth that all are sinners and fall short and its only by the Gospel that we can be transformed in Christ to be the kind of person all these identities are trying to live up to.

So by engaging in the wars we are actually drowning out the simple truth which has no identity but in Christ Himself.

Fervent said:

This is along the lines of the kind of opinions I was hoping would get discussed in this thread. Though I'm not sure it is a lone principle.

In particular, what I was hoping would get focused on is what it is that governments are instituted to preserve/protect...and whether or not the Enlightenment value of protecting individual liberties as the primary function of governments passes Biblical muster.

Click to expand...

God does love justice. He hates when the scales are imbalanced. However, he allows slavery but does not endorse it. I think God would reject free speech at least as far as the USA gives it. Pornography for instance would never be God's will for protected speech. God always seems to support due process. Paul appealing as a citizen of Rome shows that respect. God too has rules of evidence, such as everything being confirmed by two or more witnesses. God does give some criminals and foreigners rights too. I don't see any liberties that Americans would enjoy as being opposed to God, except maybe some exceptions for speech (the right to pornography an exception) and perhaps the right to any religious exercise. To me God gives free will though and while God does not want alternative paths to be worshiped, I think he suppresses that but does not outlaw it in the New Testament period. In the OT, God is quite direct in stamping out some nations that oppose him or are oppressive. In modern times, he allows far more. I think God emphasizes the difference between believers and non-believers, rather than the nations. I have seen some to suggest that God judges the church, not the nations in the New Testament. I lean to the former but there are times when God will judge leaders or groups that warrant this. If I consider the love of money in American society as a likely judgment coming, I have to assume that while everyone is effected those who are balanced in this area could actually fare better. Here I consider the low will be brought high, the high will be brought low as a Godly principle. The same goes for the humble versus the proud. So someone walking in humility without the love of money could fare extremely well.

If I consider a nation that has abortion rights as a major policy. Does God care? absolutely. So that to me is the paradox with Trump. Trump is God's choice because he is a vessel of correction in so many ways. In some things Trump is righteous yet in other things he is a leader in excesses. God is using both parts for America's good. Looking forward to more of your own and other's thoughts on this topic.

fhansen said:

And why would God need to be patient with anyone and with what they may do if He's already predetermined that they'll come.

Click to expand...

Because God's decree does not eliminate means; it establishes them. His patience is not uncertainty about the outcome; it's the ordained space in which the elect are brought to repentance according to His timing.

fhansen said:

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. In John 6:44, ἑλκύω modifies δύναται ("is able"), not ἐλθεῖν. The Father's drawing is what effects the ability to come. If the drawing were to fail, God hasn't made it possible. That is precisely what the drawing does: it makes coming to Christ possible.

fhansen said:

Not so. That's like saying I can give...

Click to expand...

Again, you're not paying attention to what the argument is. Your analogy assumes God has already given something. The text says the Father's drawing enables coming: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them." That drawing is what makes coming possible. So if someone can come, they have been drawn.

How, then, can it makes sense to say it is possible for someone to come, yet the Father's drawing -- the very act that makes it possible -- also fail?

You're wanting to jump ahead and say the Father's drawing doesn't necessitate that people will actually come to Christ. But that's not what we're disputing at this point. What we're concerned with at the moment is that the drawing is an enabling act of the Father that makes salvation possible. So if ἑλκύω can fail, salvation is not obtainable. The argument that the Father's enabling (drawing) activity does bring people effectually to Christ is a different point made from the grammar of the verse, not the meaning of ἑλκύω itself.

fhansen said:

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. But not for any reason discussed above. What necessitates the conclusion that all who are drawn (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be raised is that the grammar of the verse identifies the same individual in both clauses. The "him" who is drawn is the same "him" who will be raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This becomes even clearer when phrased contrapositively:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who is drawn/enabled. There is no distinction or separate category; the drawing guarantees coming and final resurrection.

That is not good shepherding of the flock from those pastors.

It reminds me of another concept- some churches get do obsessed with serving the community, they forget the Gospel- and partner with secular charities which they shouldn't.