Search results

Yup. That's why it is imprudent to categorically deny the benefits if having proper self esteem. No one thinks like this. Agreed. But I agree with @MatthewG that you are trying too hard to make a point. So, I'll bow out of this thread.

Ecclesiastes 3:12-13 12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; 13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil

Complete nonsense. Pride and being greater than others are mutually exclusive. Worse, you did not answer the question. Seems you are an ego destroyer. Yet, we are to be like the lord who spoke of his own sense of self. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father...

Friend. Esteem is not mutually exclusive.

Sad way to deny the accomplishment of Wycliffe who actually first translated the Bible into English - even if it is not as acedemically rigorous as Tyndale. While we can all agree a translation of a translation is not ideal, Wycliffe may only have had access to the Latin source. Point being, a...

It's absurd to suppose elohim were present but did not participate in Creation since that is EXACTLY what Scripture says. What purpose does it serve to have the other elohim sit idly by as Yahweh makes all of creation by himself? What purpose does their existence serve? It's not being...

Elohim is a word that means 'heavenly being.' We know angels are hevenly beings and John saw some creatures that are very unusual. So, we have examples of elohim other than the Creator YHWH. If I were YHWH, I would create beings to assist with Creation and would not be surprised if YHWH did as...

Cite it. I do believe "God" abd "Elohim" have different - but overlapping - meanings. I play a game called bridge but I also drive over a structure called bridge.

All this time, I thought you were a Christian. Was I mistaken? PM if need be.

Yea, we are not discussing the forbidden subject. I'm just open to te HOW of Creation not being fully revealed to us, in that other elohim may have participated at his command.

Sigh. What I wrote explains why 1 COR 8:6 states "for us, there is one God, the Father." It imples the proper identification of other gods, just not the Christian God.

Friend, I think bias is different than dishonesty. Bias is how you perceive the facts. Dishonesty is about deception. Limbaugh never admited or claimed to be unbiased. Rather, he assertted that if you listen to him, you will get a conservative biassd analysis of the facts. Hope this helps.

This is a semantic trap. It's like saying Trump is the one true President - without specifying time and place. Other companies and counitres all have Presidents and they are all true. Said differently, most concepts are not pimary but secondary; they depend on something else, context. Yes, my...

I don't know my friend. Seems dangerous to suppose the how not specified.

Yea, and I pointed out how often houtas, which means that is taken in v2 as he. No comment?

ism is a belief. How do you parse the synonyms 'gender dysphoria' from transgender?

Then you have improperly defined pride. Are you NOT proud to be a child of God?

Not sure where you are getting your informatio from but houtos means that, not him, which is the actual word in the original. So, there is that. :confused: Quick questions for you; do you admit that Jesus sits on the right hand of God and was raised by God, who is Jesus' father?

That's an interesting take that I never heard before. How did you reach that conclusion? I always considered the word to be literal but the light to be figuative.

When a Cultural Marxist cannot defend the argument, resort to personal attack.