betsy

Even if the world is flat, any ordinary person wouldn't be able to do so! Remember, it's the devil who's involved here....supernatural! Either supernatural, or figure of speech - looking as far as the eyes can see and seeing splendor of the vista around you which could include skyline of surrounding kingdoms.

Because you're reading the wrong "foundation." "foundations of the world" is not the same as "foundation" of a house. Notice why "foundations" is plural? I guess we're talking about standards. Psalm 18:13-15 13The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. 14Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. 15Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils. And it is within the context of moral grounds. Psalm 18:13-15 pictures an angry, rebuking God.

And of course, it is an interpretation you reject. I've given not only the particular verse or quote you presented, but also several verses attached to it so you can see the context. And as the passages show, the interpretation given is right. Furthermore, I also included ACTS 15 - and clearly they're talking about the Mosaic Law with circumcision as an example! Go ahead and check out a Bible. Well then, cite another interpretation. Don't look to me for the answer to that. You ask Him. A lot of the authors are known. Spanning thousands of years. Yes, nothing contrived.... and yet considering the thousands of years it remained consistent.

This is the interpretation in the study. Galatians 3:10-13 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. As many as are of the works of the law refers to all who rely upon obedience to the Mosaic Law as the means of winning divine approval (salvation). To be under a curse is to be subject to God's wrath and condemnation. Continuethis explained by to do, which means "to obey." The recipient of divine wrath is every one who, believing salvation can be obtained by meritorious works, fails to obey the law perfectly. Complete obedience to the law is impossible for sinful man (Acts 15:10; James 2:10). All, then, who attempt to secure salvation by this route are doomed. The last part of this verse means, "He who is just because of his faith shall live," that is, forever. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. This verse declares that the law is a matter of performance, not of faith; it is a principle of doing, not believing. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: The curse of the law, from which Christ hath redeemed (delivered) us, is that of verse 10, incurred because of incomplete obedience to the law. Being made a curse for us means "by becoming accursed for us." 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. The word that appears twice in this verse, identifying two reasons "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law": (1) that Gentiles might receive the blessing of Abraham; (2) that believers might receive...the Spirit (i.e., the indwelling of the Holy Spirit). This implies that when one is justified, he is at the same time divinely granted the Holy Spirit. ------------- Clearly the verses refer to the Mosaic Law. Aside from the 10 Commandments given to Moses, there were other strict laws given by God. These other strict laws - dietary, circumcision, worshipping, offerings etc., - were given particularly to the Jews because God had chosen them to be His people. They were supposed to be a holy nation. He had a purpose for them. There is no contradiction. As the New Testament expanded (and explained), clearly what we (the Gentiles) are being told to disregard are the other laws that were meant specifically for the Jews. In ACTS 15 (which is about The Council at Jerusalem), there was a confusion regarding the Gentiles. ACTS 15:1-2 1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. So they went to Jerusalem and there was the council regarding this matter. ACTS 15:10-11 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Study interpretation: The primary speakers at this conference, often called the Jerusalem council, were Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James. Peter begins by relating how God had clearly saved Cornelius and the other Gentiles with him apart from any works of the Law. In fact, Peter acknowledges that not only do the Gentiles not need to become like Jews to be saved, but conversely we, the Jews, need to be saved as they.

I used to think that the New Testament is "different" than the Old. But it's not. It's a common misconception I guess - but actually Jesus Himself was clear about that. In the Old Testament, God gave the Law. In the New Testament, Jesus EXPANDED on those law.

Well, my response to Jack Weber was just a speculation on my part as to what really was behind those flag-waving celebrations we saw on tv. I don't think there is anything wrong with speculating, is there? I do hope yor're not putting words in my mouth nor are you trying to twist my quote-mined remark (which you responded to). As I've said before, rejoicing over the death of an enemy is not right. It was the way you responded.

Of course who knows what's in people's hearts. I'm sure that there are also many Muslims all over the world who sincerely sympathized and emphatized with the victims of 9/11. Bloodyminded made a rematk which came across as a chastisement/rebuke because westerners did not show any emotions over casualties of war, thereby pegging their moral compass down....equating them with those who blatantly rejoiced on the streets over the deaths of innocents - whom by the way are most probably likely to have no problem at all using innocent children as suicide bombers. The point is: Did any westerners openly celebrate the deaths of innocent Muslims?

So you aim for the humans. Not the Book! Stumped.

Be specific. Be specific. Give the Bible passages you're referring to so we can discuss them.

I never even heard of this guy. You brought him here....therefore it's up to you to bring in his explanations. That's all it is. Personal opinion. Big deal! Besides, if that quote you gave is the best sample you could give....I say, what's new about his personal opinion? Well...what can I say. It's hard to show something to someone who's got their eyes tightly shut.

It's sad when thinking people choose to be obtuse - curtailing their thinking process - rather than address the issue head-on. Why do they feel threatened by this simple fact about the Bible? I would understand the desperate resistance from fundamentalist atheists who refuse to acknowledge what obviously means the annihiliation of their belief. But for confessed agnostics (skeptics)? You'd think they'd be more open-minded to explore. Of course, since there are so numeorus "hybrids" or classifications of atheism/agnosticism.....I guess there's bound to be confusions as to which classification one really belongs. The Bible is the Authoritative Book! The "faith" part does not come from science supporting the authoritative facts in the Bible. After all, if there is no faith....there wouldn't be any confidence at all. The scientific facts in the Bible - detailed in this topic - are for those whose "faith" is in science. Science is proving to you - unbelievers and scoffers of the Judeo-Christian belief - what's already been written in the Bible thousands of years ago!

Did Matthew Good come up with the explanation why the Bible has numerous declarations that's been supported by science to be facts? Does he have anything to say about the specific Biblical facts - supported by science - that's posted on this thread? Historical set of documents, at the very least. So that means there's more to it. What else? Considering all the posted Biblical facts - some of them pertain to origin, details that only Someone with intimate knowledge could know - which are all supported by science to be true, what can you say about that?

Did you see anyone on tv celebrating - cheering and dancing on the streets - the death of the innocent Muslims? I didn't. Did you see Muslims on tv celebrating - cheering and dancing on the streets - the death of innocents from 9/11? I did. Do you need to actually see people being sad, and just because you didn't see anyone weeping over casualties of war, you point your accusing finger that therefore they were the same as those Muslims who blatantly rejoiced over the deaths of innocents from 9/11. Forgive me but I can't help but question not only your logic....but also where your loyalty lies. I assume you are a Canadian. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're trying to convince yourself? Or are you in denial?

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, one land and one ocean! Science says one supercontinent and one enormous ocean existed on earth, a billion years ago – just as the Bible said in Genesis. Genesis 1:9-10 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/Dance%20of%20the%20Giant%20Continents.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/441527/Panthalassa

I keep reading about the 77 virgins.... Btw, did they specify what kinds of virgins these 77 are? Human virgins? A martyr wannabe should make sure. What if they're camels?

It's okay to lend money. There was a parable about the servant who was forgiven by the king for not paying his loan, BUT that same servant did not show the same leniency to another poor guy who failed to pay him - the servant - for loaned money. He demanded that the poor guy be sent to the dungeon. When the king heard of this - the servant's unforgiving attitude - he threw the servant in prison! The moral here is that God will show you the same mercy you show to others. There is something against usury though. I think.

Who were the forefathers? What were they?

We can't change anything at all in the Bible. Clearly stated by Christ. So yes, when we accept adultery, promiscuity, homosexual relationships/marriage, etc., as normal lifestyles.....it's not Christianity anymore.

Although the newspeople I see on tv (CTV/CBC) are not exactly doomsayers, I do notice how they go out of their way to make any disaster sound as "the worst one" - be it tornado/hurricane, flooding, volcano eruptions - to be experienced by a place/people. Note: they seem to have given up with earthquakes though. They can't keep up....and it's harder to associate it with anything man-made. Reason I brought this up here, I just got back from watching the news about the tornado in Missouri....and oh boy, did the news guy ever asked such leading questions, one after another - even though the person he's interviewing was giving the message that this kind of thing - tornadoes - is just an accepted part of life in their community - trying to get the guy to say it's the worst he's ever seen! And he's not the only news guy doing this! And the way they really use this phrase "....the worst in...." and you expect to hear something so dramatic like a century, only to hear them say, ".....twenty years!" I guess so they can tie it up with the environment issue!

Btw, does anyone know how Israel was given that very particular land? Did they refer to the Bible? The reason I asked is because that place was specifically designated to Israel and Judah in the Old Testament.

Well I do hope that Harper will be clear on a very specific term for this "negotiated solution": That these nations will fully recognize and accept Israel's right to exist as a nation. Nothing less than that! Of course these nations could do some lip-service and say they will.....well world leaders should be prepared to make sure they - every nations involved , including those who brokered it - do abide by that negotiation resolution. It should be enforced!

Actually I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'll try to address it. Here is what Jesus said and expect us to do: Romans 13: 1-10 Submission to Governing Authorities 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. Obviously you were referring to my previous response, so let me make that clear: It depends on the seriousness of the crime! Do you expect someone who stole a chocolate bar or someone guilty of slander to be punished in the same way cold-blooded muderers are punished?

It's so easy for you guys to say that Israel ought to listen to Obama just so to have a "peaceful" resolution. Will you be willing to let go and give up our right to the Arctic if Obama brokers that resolution so to avoid any conflict?

That's highly debatable! Three nations against a lone-standing Israel! Palestinians doing its share by covert guerilla tactics. All sought to remove Israel from the map! That Israel whacked all three of them in just 6 days, - a great show of might and power - Israel could've just as easily pounded all three and fully occupied all those nations. Had the situation's been reversed, you think all those three nations wouldn't have finished off Israel? You think they'd listened to other world leaders who would've pleaded for Israel? Those borders are the "spoils of war!" Israel has every right to keep them. Israel deserved them fully. Israel demonstrated its rightuousness by the tremendous show of self-restraint from finishing all those nations once and for all! Furthermore, why should Israel even entertain such questionable so-called "peace" policy from Obama, when these nations openly refuse to accept Israel to exist as a nation???? Refusing to accept Israel to exist as a nation - do you realize the full implication of that???