Search results

I'm talking p → q, Lon. The emphasis I add is to try to get the point across to you more efficiently. Why? Haven't seen anyone do this here. Point it out? If the future is infallibly foreknown, then the future is, in fact, stagnant, by definition, because if anything other than what is...

Yes we agree. That's not the point of contention. The point of contention is this: Not in dispute. Jesus did not create twice. He created once, ~7500 years ago. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’...

Someone else who hasn't bothered to read the thread all the way through... That's not the definition of "sovereign," as Clete pointed out. A king is sovereign over his nation. It doesn't mean he is in absolute control of every single thing and person and atom and molecule He rules over. It...

The Bible tells us when the angels were created. They were created on Day 1. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?Surely you know!Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened?Or...

It was intended to show a discrepancy.

Did you even bother reading the thread up to this point?

Jesus is the Son, not the Father.

Please pay attention.

If you're going to jump to a different topic, start a new thread.

One which begged the question that the tradition originated with the Apostles, which you have yet to establish, and have only merely asserted. Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22-23; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 7:8, 10:45, 11:2, 15:1; Romans 2:25; Galatians 2:4, 7, 9, 12 (cf Acts 15:1)...

They can be if the tradition is that they originated with the Apostles. That's what's in dispute. Not currently. Yes, we do. It's called Acts. The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth. Paul showed that no, you do not have to be circumcised at any point...

You're responding to Bladerunner. The original question I asked was directed at Keiw1 (whom I have since banned).

I'm going to ignore your terrible grammar for the moment, and focus on the thrust of what you said here. Yes, there are nine total uses of "raqia" in Genesis 1. No, that's a non-sequitur, and is the entire point of contention of the discussion I'm having with Derf. In other words, to say...

Ok. So you basically have conceded half the battle to me with this. My position is that it was in fact the planet earth that was created in verse one, and all the matter that God used to create the other things in the universe. To put it another way, God created matter ("the heavens"), and...

You realize that 1) it was a question 2) directed at a Jehovah's Witness, right? Ya know, the cult that rejects Jesus as God? This is why RD said you have reading comprehension issues.

Reminds me of the "mortally challenged" (demons) from Doom Eternal: It's amazing the parallels between the villains of Doom Eternal, and today's evil leaders.

I'm saying that "the firmament," which is called "Heaven" in verse 8, and talked about in verses 6-10, is NOT the same thing as "the firmament of the heavens" in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20. This is what the Hydroplate Theory is based on. Derf is the one saying that "the firmament" and "the...

You didn't really answer the question, but I appreciate the response. What about the above revised version of Genesis 1 doesn't indicate that there's a structure to the creation? That there isn't a limit to it? What about it doesn't distinguish, but rather, conflates, the two main spatial...

Potential translation: "We're not going to allow people to be safe in a second Trump term."

BETTER YET! Why not just use "the firmament" once, in verse 6, and then since, if what you assert is true, there is only one firmament, use "the firmament of the heavens" the other 8 of 9 times? AND EVEN BETTER! Why not just use ONLY "the firmament," why the need to distinguish "the firmament...