thomas t

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

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

done. ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok Beau.

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

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

Hi Beau, why "hardened"? Melinda told a story about two friends who are atheists. Like so many others. Well, atheists do have objections to Christ. They would be Christians otherwise. It's normal for them to not agree. I would call them atheists. Even the small words are important. We want to invite everyone for faith, do we? So why escalate here, Beau? There are so many Christians around already that are ready to bash atheists, in my opinion. But in general I like your posts a lot, Beau. Now I would like to take the opportunity to praise your efforts here on Worthy, they are great! Thomas

ok, below is a rebuttal: Let me first point out that this source, providing a source itself, says the oceans are rather a "sink" for CO2 than a source. But even if Hocker were to be right... we can't lean back and say it's the oceans. Even if he was right... it's still man who's responsible for much of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see my first source in this thread). In my opinion, we should assume responsibility for our own emissions and stop blaming anything and everything for it. I hope you noted my EDIT of my last post, just minutes before your reply. Thomas

Hazard, as I explained before, the first three verses you provided didn't show anything at all, so I didn't check the rest, can we stop our discussion here, please? Did you ever hear of the Elephant Hurling fallacy? Posting too much information, so that noone is able to check everything? If you want a theory, just post 100 Bibleverses and claim victory unless someone has the time to go through all this... I don't want to fall victim to this. Regards, Thomas

Hi Missmuffet, Amen, must be the Holy Spirit that explains. Thomas --- Hi Cletus; So let's listen to what science has to say: "By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation. " Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/ Thomas --- Hi Other One, Again, I couldn't find but one source in your whole article. It's a shame. So let's listen to what science has to tell you about what you say: "The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc). " Click here for source. Regards, Thomas EDIT: here we see information about your hypothesis that the sun is causing global warmth: https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm This source says this: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature. Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site."

no, please, back your allegations up. The source I gave earlier is about the CO2 levels and its relationship with climate change. Did you like it? this is what we ought to do (Gen 1:28:) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Thomas EDIT: since you say plants are thriving because of CO2 surpluses: https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-forests-on-the-verge-of-collapse-experts-report/a-49659810 This essay describes very much how the weather impacts cause German plants to die. P.S.: I don't want to kill off anybody, as you said. Just asking if you could contribute to get CO2 levels down. I love God's given forests and at the moment forests are getting down.

no I haven't. I checked the first three Bible verses you gave and found out that none of them could back up any claim. After that, I found it wouldn't be promising to go check the rest of what you've said. I've explained to you in more detail here, already. I don't have unlimited time. Regards, Thomas

Hi Other One, not giving back-up information when we accuse somebody of something - is that a Christian trait? Hi Missmuffet, when we treat His earth like waste, we shouldn't be worried that the punishment will come. Regards, Thomas

my research: --------------- ------------------- However, I'm no hater. America is great. ---- Hi Missmuffet, we have a responsibility, too - cause this isn't our world. It belongs to God. Let's take that seriously. Regards, Thomas P.S.: the graph didn't open: it's here In the US according to that source, carbon dioxide emissions increased by 3.4 %. In previous years, in contrast, co2 levels have decreased.

Hi Still Alive, Look at the common style in business. Cheating seems to be a part of it. When God does business, will he cheat as well, in your opinion? Even if 99% of all professional writers at that age exaggerated in numbers - God di not. You cannot extrapolate from human writers to God. Yes, that's what it is. Don't let the doubts touch you. No, I don't know your book, I prefer the Bible. Since they disagree with the numbers as used in the Bible, I won't even look at your sources. The nice German company Volkswagen used also a very common device in emission tests. Nevertheless, the US made them pay billions of dollars. God does not write like Volkswagen does. "figure of speech" - and we need the wise and well-educated to decide for us which numbers should be taken literally and which ones should be seen as a figure of speech ... no thank you. I won't agree with you on numbers, even if this discussion goes on. We can come to a close here? Thomas

Let's do something to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - here's some scientific data on the connection between carbon dioxide and climate change. Thomas

Hi Still Alive, now I'd like to answer your links you brought up. The first link describes the earth as outlined in Genesis. The earth with a firmament in the sky. However, it came down during the flood. The whole earth was destroyed by the flood see 2 Peter 3:5-6. Hence, not all elements of the old earth are still there. There is no conundrum about numbers in the Bible. It's simple: when Bible says 1000 it means thousand. When Bible says 10, it is ten and so forth. Actually, Michael Heiser doubts that an almighty God would have been poweful enough to feed 2 m Israelites in the desert. Michael Heiser doubting. Let us be faithful, please. I hope that you don't present Michael Heiser in your Sunday school? Let people be edified in their faith. In my opinion, it's better to teach Bible instead of Michael Heiser. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1. Timothy 4:16 Regards, Thomas