Jump to content

thomas t

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

601 Good

7 Followers

About thomas t

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/20/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://t-apologetics.jimdofree.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bamberg, Germany
  • Interests
    discussing faith with doubters; music

Recent Profile Visitors

2,672 profile views
  1. I humbly stay with my opinion about Hollywood and arts. Music&Arts is created by God, look at this thread for instance, even secular music has its origins with God the creator, I think. that's how it is, name me a human that's not a sinner. as I said, it's culture. Culture, in my opinion, has more shades than being just evil or good. Culture can be an expression of your feelings, of yourself, a reflection of what God has created. Even secular people reflect on this. It is as @saved34 has put it. It's like a PC. A PC in itself can't be evil, even in times you don't use it for church reasons. Same with culture. Sometimes you have the desire to have it. In the Garden, there was certainly the tree of culture, won't you think? Thomas
  2. Hi unworthyservant, I agree that's strange. Professing faith should be a given. Do it. Now here I disagree: In my opinion, you can't judge a movie just for reveiling too much uncovered skin. Sometimes this is integrated into an artistic concept. It's culture also. I'm not saying any movie is arts. But it can happen to be arts, in my opinion. Just being famous is not a sin. Being beautiful is not a sin either. Working in the entertainment sector? Isn't sinful either. Being rich in and of itself isn't sinful either, in my opinion. America is very strong in good entertainment. Sometimes it is real arts that they're doing. Let me cite a fellow poster: Amen. Thomas
  3. Hi Baw, @missmuffet says we don't question God's plan. That's very wise. Must have come from someone old . But we can discuss it... So your alternative would be, kill Adam and have no human life at all? Hard to understand... Last time this question came up and I became aware of it, I went down another road questioning God's purported all-time omniscience. Please take a look at this thread here... But this time I won't argue if you say God is and has always been and always will be omniscient - staying with my opinion, however. This time, I want to point out that many people already live in some sort of hell, in my opinion. For me materialism is hell. People judge you, and themselves, according to their bank account. If you are unable to meet expectations then they condemn you, ... but nothing against you. They would condemn themselves, too. Thus they make life hell for themselves, I think, because their self-esteem hinges on money and other material things. They could make different choices and accept Yeshua as a savior. Yeshua is love and he makes it clear that he accepts everyone. Not for money reasons or because of what they do. Just because of what they are. Perfect. Regards, Thomas
  4. great verses, Sower. Let me bring this topic up again. In the other thread a poster called atheists "imbeciles" (the scientists among them, to be exact). We've difficulty in reaching out to them, when some posters on Worthy call them names, I think. However, George says reaching out is the No 1 purpose of this board. The post got even voted up. Noone was protesting, however. We need to be in unity when we evangelize. As your Bible verses said. Let's be more careful, please. Thomas
  5. Argosy, it's you who defines it this way. Genesis 1:10 merely shows that the name Erets is given to the soil. Doesn't mean that Erets can't mean anything else, any more. My interpretation is right, I think. In Gen. 1:5 Light was given the name "day" and darkness was called "night". Are these definitions? No. Just names, too. Day of wrath won't mean light of wrath, for instance. Nothing but simple names. Thank you, that's how I do it. and it's perfectly now - in the 21st century - that this dictionary uses the word "earth at large". ---- Still, it is as precise as it is. When Bible teaches it's seven days, it's seven days. Regards, Thomas
  6. Hi Argosy, nice that you are so literal: now there are two people. An anonymous chap "Argosy" telling me erets always means ground.... and Strong's dictionary telling me erets can mean the earth at large also... whom shall I believe? That Bibleverse (Exo 9:29 ESV) makes it clear to me that Strong's is right: Moses said to him, “As soon as I have gone out of the city, I will stretch out my hands to the Lord. The thunder will cease, and there will be no more hail, so that you may know that the dry ground earth is the Lord’s. --- absolutely. Hi Jayne. --- Hi Still Alive, my rule of thumb: when Paul does not say it is from him, the Bible is from God. you don't have anything in scipture to prove your point, so I stay with my opinion. You didn't even try to back up what you just said except for mentioning the morning. You seem to be pointing to the fact that, according to the Bible, there was a morning/ an evening before the sun was even made. So there must have been a concept of morning and evening before sun, in my opinion. That's all. My approach to explain: That's a great point for the earth to be a planet. On day 1, 2 and 3, God stood at the one side of it making it light, the other side of the ball was still dark... and the area at the sides of it in between... were morning and evening. Regards, Thomas
  7. Hi Argosy, Even if... Strong's dictionary translates into today's English. Noone buys a distionary Hebrew to 1600 old style Englisch. That won't sell. They want to make money. So I kindly stay with what I've said, if you allow? It's not weird, it's my reading. --- Hi Still, what my parents say - be they honoured - does not count when it comes to Bible intepretation. God counts life from the mother's womb on. God says it - some among us still don't know . 7 days is not an inference, you find it in the Bible. Regards, Thomas
  8. Hazard, can you adopt a different tone please? --- Hi Argosy, Even the stars were made during a day in a 6 day creation period. So if you say, God spoke about the sun in Genesis 1 and also the stars in Genesis 1 but not the earth, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion. Here's Strongs dictionary for erets ("the earth" as used in Genesis 1:1) 'erets eh'-rets from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): ---- Hi Still Alive, that's a good thought, I think. But different ages were known. Moreover, Abraham was told that his sons would be as numerous as the sand at the seashore - you see, they understood great numbers. Even back then. And God would have had a chance to tell them that the earth is very old, if it were so. "the years are as numerous as the sand of the seashore!" Why not? I hear that so often. But when God makes it a topic it is a topic. You aren't interested in what the Bible tells about the time span from the beginning till now. Well, that's true. Other theologians are, in contrast. You aren't representative of every theologian in the world . Regards, Thomas
  9. Just a reminder here. The King James, ESV, NASB, NLT, ASV, and NKJV do not say rape. [...] In the Bible, "lay with her" is primarily consensual. Why would God institute all of this hullabaloo over shekels of silver and marriage with a violent rapist when God had JUST said that a rapist must be put to death in verse 25. A man who rapes a woman and is forced to marry her will rape her again and again. Time has proven that over and over. Marital rape is really a "thing". I've listened to two women who suffered this. Women who would not seek help from the police for fear they would be killed. Marriage won't stop the violence. Hi Jayne, I love your effort for the case of young girls and women! You've done a great job pointing out that Naomi indeed travelled alone great distances, as did Hagar in Genesis 21! Or the lady in Highsong 1:6 (keeper of the vine)? Just a little note: if Deuteronomy 22:28 is not rape - then what is rape? It says "seizes". When you call it consensual than every rapist might just laugh and say "no no, I just seized her - had nothing to do with rape! ". It would be a cop-out! Or imagine the following situation. A young girl comes to you entrusting herself to you telling you the same exact story as has happened in Deuteronomy 22:28. And then? If seizing is not rape, then how should this girl get to the conviction that he did forget to ask her? (Verse 25 is about engaged women.) As you say: marital rape is really a thing. Agreed absolutely. But marital "seizing" is what? (It's rape, too, unless the woman said "seize me, please!" - my opinion) In my opinion, it's just wise from God to avoid the word of rape here (I mean the same word used in the Dinah case). So this makes people think about consensuality. But please feel encouraged to go on thinking about that verse and fighting for the case of young girls& women. You do have a great potential, I feel! Thomas
  10. Hi Hazard, ok let's go into detail now: So let's compare it to Bible, though: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God restored created and made " just a correction. replenish? According to Strong's dictionary,It's ... "fill", you can fiull an empty glass, though. There is absolutely no problem if you translate "fill" in Gen 9:1 and Isa 2:6, as well. As some other occasions of that word that you metioned. yes I did, there was no problem (see above). ok, but since the whole procedure lasted 6 days, it could not be longer than that. He did not create the earth in vain, says that verse, Hazard. Thomas
  11. great Tzeph, that you point that out. I must have overlooked it when I answered . It's good to have you here! That's interesting to read! Keep up your good work! Thomas
  12. ok. But the two friends could also be agnostics. See definition here from Webster. They say they don't rule out a God. They just see no reason to be theists. This is different. Thomas
  13. Hi Heavensflower, I love your passion for the case of women and girls. Keep on! Great post. Just a little thing... and before you said: now let's read which Hebrew word is used for what you translate "seduce": way·‘an·ne·hā the same word is used in 2 Samuel 13:14, which is a clear cut rape. So if you say way·‘an·ne·hā should be rather called "seduction" you could end up playing down rape. That's the danger here. Or let me put it that way: other people could jump in and call rape seduction, playing down rape in general. That's the danger here. But keep your work up defending women and girls! Thomas
×
×
  • Create New...