B flat B♭
- By Apple Sky
- Conspiracy Theories
- 698 Replies
What many of us say (and I think you have agreed) is that Genesis does not mention the earth's shape.
But the book of Job does.
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.
What many of us say (and I think you have agreed) is that Genesis does not mention the earth's shape.
The difference is you’re looking at their car, saying yours is worse, and thus they don’t deserve food.
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.
That's correct.The beginning is when God created the heavens and the earth.
Why not?But that's not about material origins. It's about the beginning of God's actions.
These two statements are not the same.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.
These statements do not say anything about how long the pizza was formless before I began to create it.
At the time of creation, the earth was formless.At the time of creation, the earth was formless. But nothing is said about how long the earth was formless before that time.
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.
According to the reading of Genesis, the beginning is when God created the heavens and earth. Not began to.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.
I don't think anyone made that claim about Genesis 1. About the Psalms and parts of Job, definitely.Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?
Not in my case. It's because you have misread and misapplied ScriptureThis 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.
In my case, I'm talking only about Zechariah 5.But instead of checking my references and making sure of their position, I get the 'knee jerk' rection of flat rejection,
So asking questions is "frivolous" is it? How do you expect anyone to learn without asking questions?You ask questions instead of giving answers.
Well yes.It may just be best to drop this issue and wait for what the Lord intends to do with Iran.
When I have more time I will write a more elaborate respond, but for short: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.
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.Someone claimed that Genesis 1 is poetic, is this true ?
Oh no!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.
We do read and believe Genesis 1 as it was meant to be understood.
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.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.
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.Was it weird of me to ask to go watch his son play?
Why not?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.
The account reads...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.
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.
None of them are Christian Nationalists and they don't wish to destroy our country.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.
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.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"?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Not so. That's like saying I can give...
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: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.