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.
1. You were asked for Biblical references to the firmament being solid - shame you can only provide AI overview.AI over veiw
Biblical references that suggest the firmament was solid, or a solid dome, are primarily in the Genesis 1:6-8 creation account, where God divides the waters above and below, and in Job 37:18, which describes the sky as "strong" and like a molten looking glass. This interpretation is based on the Hebrew word raqia, often translated as "firmament" or "vault," which has been understood to mean a solid structure.
You have no idea what was in the mind of Almighty God when he created the world, and when he inspired Moses to write Genesis.
We are not told that the firmament holds or supports the waters which are above it, just that there were waters above and below the firmament.
You have no idea what was in the mind of Almighty God when he created the world, and when he inspired Moses to write Genesis.This is not what God meant.
So where is there any biblical reference to the firmament being solid
I have lost all respect for you.They didn't. Republicans did. Thanks for playing.
-CryptoLutheran
We are not told that the firmament holds or supports the waters which are above it, just that there were waters above and below the firmament.So in your view Genesis 1: 6 & 7 must be wrong ?
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
What else could hold the water above the firmament ?
So where is there any biblical reference to the firmament being solid? I have already pointed out that Job 37:18, which you quoted before as saying the firmament is solid doesn't even mention the firmament. The word in our English translations is sky or skies, and it translates the Hebrew word shachaq, not the Hebrew word raqiya, which is the word used for "firmament".David can check all he likes but there's no denying that the firmament is solid.
Thanks for replying. I don't see God saying that everything He had created was very good merely because everything is technically in His hands. The fate of Satan is in His hands but that doesn't make Satan very good since he fell.That is only true because in any final analysis, "everything" is technically in God's Hands.
Nevertheless, God did indeed pronounce the newly-created universe "very good."None of that is true of any given thing in creation, all of it being "less than" Perfect God, The Creator.
We don't read of the tempter being in the garden until Genesis 3. God's pronouncement of creation being very good is in Genesis 1:The tempter was in the garden and the tempter was a sinner, a liar and a murderer. So was the tempter VERY GOOD?
We don't read of any of those things being present on Day 6, when God made His "very good" pronouncement. They come in Genesis 3.Nope.
Was "temptation" very good? NOPE.
Was lying very good? NOPE.
Was deception very good? NOPE.
Was the knowledge of evil very good? NOPE.
Was the death threat very good? NOPE.
Was disobedience very good? NOPE.
Was lust very good? NOPE.
Merely being less (in power, ability, etc) than the Creator does not prevent the creation from being very good.I could go on, but you get the point. What is "very good" about all "less than The Creator" is that by all these things we come to understand God's Divine Mercy, which is very very good.
We don't read of Satan tempting Adam while Eve was still part of him. Paul wrote:Your position keeps missing the point.
The moment God blessed Adam, with Eve still within him, Satan entered his heart to steal THE WORD, just as Jesus said happens, in Mark 4:15
Mark 4:15 transpired in the garden.
Three, for God engaged with Eve too.There is no use and no point in seeing only Adam or only Eve from that point onward.
Brilliant deduction.
You might start to perceive that God was in fact engaging TWO parties in the garden. His son, Adam and the TEMPTER in Adam.
That is irrelevant, because when God made the pronouncement that everything was very good, the temptation had yet to happen. The "do not eat" command was addressed by God to Adam:We know for example that the "law" is for lawless sinners, per 1 Tim. 1:9. Is the devil a sinner? YEP. Who then was the law, "do not eat or else" actually for? Adam or the tempter?
But as I have said, the temptation did NOT happen before God pronounced everything very good, but afterwards.You see how this can get more complicated than just a simple surface view.
We can easily see LUST and DECEPTION and NOT HEARING that law in Eve, all acts of the TEMPTER in her dust body.
Sins are not counted against people. 2 Cor. 5:19
It is actually actions of the devil who would have it otherwise, and NOT be directed to him and his own in people.
You hear the man. I hear a man blinded by the god of this world in him, speaking. Just like Satan spoke through Peter.
The carnal man can't see these things. As believers we're called in for a closer deeper look, aren't we?
God clearly stated to the serpent that the serpent had done this.
And yes, that serpent is in fact cursed IN people.
People are the dust it eats.
"and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
The serpent plants a seed in the dirt called a tare. And it, along with the wheat, grows.
The wheat (people) get harvested back to the barn of heaven, Eccl. 12:7
And the home of the serpent or his own gets turned to DUST and is made again and again, homeless.
And on it goes, to this day, til the FINALE
I'd prefer not to think about it.So what do you think will happen to America?
He isn't.Just imagine what he could do if he wasn’t so obsessed with all his enemies.
The difference between executing drug dealers in a boat or on a truck or making drugs in a house is..?Forgive me...
Don't worry about it. We now know your position. People suspected of dealing drugs can be summarily executed.Wrong. They apply when...
Not more of the bad stuff but more of the good, if he’s capable.Do those who are opposed to virtually everything Trump is doing, actually want him doing even more?
Just imagine what he could do if he wasn’t so obsessed with all his enemies.He wouldn't have done so much in such a short amount of time if he wasn't working. One may not like what all Trump is doing, but he's obviously getting a lot of work done at a fast pace.
Yes sorry I get confused with posters. It was a standout as it was contradictory to what all other objections.Please, make sure you get the names correct if you are going to ascribe someone a position.
Yes I made an exaggerated example to hit home the illogical thinking. Lets say it was a precision part that looks a part that goes into a Porche. This will have much of the same precision of a vase that has been lathed. We don't need to find the manufacturing machine that made that part.The Petrie vases are not like Porsches though.
Petrie was excavating from the later 19th century. I would like to see any examples of attempts to create these vases back then. I have a feeling they were not as precise. Even today manufactures say that replicating these vases is not easy and requires specialist machining. Especially on the inside.Actually, we know that replicas was made even at the time of Petrie's dogs. This is why I would be much happier with investigations of vases from well documented modern dogs.
Well this is the point. Who is saying this. The skeptics will always want more and more and more evidence which can be overly demanding. Whereas many institutions, dealers, and most importantly the market says they are the real deal.Perhaps they were inherited, but until we can say that they ARE inherited we can't use them to argue about predynastic vases.
Olga managed to make a vase with better exterior quality (according to Max) by only having a method to mark areas that were higher than the rest.
maximus.energy
Yes and thats my whole point. Now your thinking outside the circular. The use of heat and fire to shape objects. A natural phenomena that is enhanced by humans. I mentioned the softening of stone which is a similar logic.There are other ways to do that that don't involve rotating the object. You can soot the inside of a hole in a piece of wood and polish the surfaces that get soot on them, my speculation. There are probably other ways to, that more experienced artisans have developed as a matter of fact during their careers.
Petrie actually pioneered modern archeology. He is like the Einstein of phsyics. His measures though not down to the micron were what set the science of archeology. He rigidly recorded every detail.Petrie was active well before the methods of archeology had matured
Lol your now subjectively making claims about Petries motives and thinking to use as evidence to undermine him. Just because he says something that many, even his contempories agreed with and can see with their own eyes.and whilst he obviously was very interested in ancient Egypt, just because he says something doesn't make it true. The fact that he supposedly gave things away, makes me believe that he at least sometimes made quite substantial mistakes. Most of his writings are not peer-reviewed either.
Here it is again. The reduction of anyone who dares suggest the same findings must all be deluded and are seeing things that are not there. Like some contagious mental disorder that causes them to be fooled. Never any thought that repeated findings may be good science lol.Coincidentally? They have probably read him.
So wait now your doing it to Petrie. He is looking directly at the arcs in the vases. What he depicts in only a small example. But he is looking directly at them and with his vase expertise telling us how the arc is uniform and meets exactly when reset. The steps around the lip stepped up with the same exact arc.The pictures you have shown don't have exact uniform arcs.
Actually Max mentions this. He says he is already publishing them on his site. They are open articvles available for peer review and this is actually happening right now. Whether that is taken to a jouranl I don't know. But whats the difference. Both are open to scientists to peer review.Max should get his stuff published if he believes in it.
This needs to be fixed given the Trump admin.Trump administration moves to overrule state laws protecting credit reports from medical debt
The Trump administration is moving to overrule any state laws that may protect consumers’ credit reports from medical debt and other debt issues.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has drafted what’s known as an interpretative rule related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, interpreting the law in a way that says the FCRA should preempt any state laws or regulations when it comes to how debt should be reported to the credit bureaus like Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.
This repeals previous Biden-era rules and regulations that allowed states to implement their own credit reporting bans. More than a dozen states like New York and Delaware prohibit the reporting of medical debt on a consumers’ credit report.
Medical debt is often the most disputed part of a consumer’s credit report, because insurance payments can take time, and oftentimes patients do not have the means to fully pay a medical bill if insurance is not covering a procedure that has already taken place.
The three credit bureaus jointly announced in 2023 they would no longer track any medical debts below $500, which at the time the bureaus said would eliminate 70% of all medical debts reported on consumers’ credit files. But some states have gone further than that. New York, Delaware and others passed laws where medical debts can no longer be reported to the credit bureaus.
The CFPB, which is largely not operating at the moment with the exception of actively repealing previous rules written under President Biden or earlier, says in its rule that Congress intended to “create national standards for the credit reporting system” under the FCRA and state laws run afoul of that intention.
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that Americans owe roughly $220 billion in medical debt. In Republican-controlled states like South Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia and Georgia, roughly one in six Americans have outstanding medical debt, according to the KFF.
Having outstanding, delinquent medical debt can impact the ability for an individual to apply for a mortgage, a credit card or an auto loan.
~bella
The negotiations should happen after the clean CR is allowed to pass by the Democrats.
Because the Republicans are causing the suffering of some who depend upon government money, and this is the only leverage the Democratic party has right now. Certainly, the GOP has not proven themselves open to negotiation up to this point, why should democrats expect it after the GOP gets what they want?Otherwise, the Democratic Party is attempting to use the suffering of some who depend upon government money as leverage against the GOP. I got to wonder why they are willing to do that?
My article is linked, and has sources for their statements within the article. You posted the lies from the Trump White house itself. An org that will lie like no tomorrow. The org that has claimed it has a plan to make healthcare better and cheaper which would make this whole shutdown moot. But we both know that too is a lie. So one more time. If you or the White house of the GOP have to make up claims as a argument, then all of you have no argument.I don't know which particular source this is, but going to the same sources that have been spreaders of hoax after hoax is not logical. Do you know the old saying, "Fool me once . . ?" There were over 2 million non-citizens receiving Medicaid before the big beautiful bill became law. Democrats can argue that they were legal due to Biden administration polices but they are illegals now. The GOP tightened up the wording in the law to prevent them from taking taxpayer dollars, why do you think the Democrats are still demanding the wording in the new law be removed? It's the same tactic they use over and over, while people were pouring over our southern border and they were even secretly flying people in, they told their base the border was safe, secure, and closed. It took some Republican senators getting past the secrecy and recording what was going on, and then the Texas governor busing people to Democrat cities in order for some to realize they had been lied to:
“They’re angry… They’re frustrated that the Congress — at least in the Senate — is focused on paying for health care benefits for illegals as opposed to paying their paychecks for the great work that they provide to the American people.” (Watch)
![]()
Democrat Shutdown Jeopardizes America’s Skies
Democrats’ reckless government shutdown — now dragging into its third week — has plunged America’s air traffic control system towards a tailspin. Whilewww.whitehouse.gov
I think he’s a spoiled bully who should be working instead of trolling on the internet every day.Trolling on the internet refers to the deliberate act of posting inflammatory, provocative, or off-topic messages in online communities such as forums, social media platforms, chat rooms, or blogs with the primary intent of provoking strong emotional reactions, inciting arguments, or causing disruption.
The behavior is typically motivated by amusement, a desire for attention, or to manipulate perceptions, and often involves tactics like deception, where the troll may pretend to hold a belief they do not actually have to elicit a response.
Several thoughts...
Though some of it may be funny, is it a good thing?
Should a President, in this case, Trump, troll the public?
Please give some examples of a Democrat President trolling the public?
I didn't vote for Harris or Trump, so either side trolling seems unnecessary.
What is your opinion of a President trolling?