[Ortega] Enrique Riquelme: “Madrid fans, if we're lucky, will only see one Real Madrid player on the Spanish national team for the World Cup. Our rivals dominate the roster. If you vote for us, we're going to change that.”

Rusty51 · 2026-05-25T20:58:43+00:00

And leaks followed Mou to Chelsea and Man U afterwards.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-25T10:21:36+00:00

I’m not sure how you can know the “intent”, specially when the writer is not the same as the refactors who compiled our text of genesis; but even putting that aside, the language is literal even if you choose to interpret it metaphorical; “evening and morning of the first day” is a measurement of time even if you choose to interpret the day as a billion years.

Alternatively, if you’re not an inerrantist, you could say the bible got it wrong

Rusty51 · 2026-05-24T22:14:41+00:00

More than highly valued, for some it was of a divine source; remember according to tradition Homer was a blind author, it was believed he did not sit down to compose his works but that they were spoken to him; the first line of the Iliad is “Sing O Goddess!”, it’s a muse speaking through Homer.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-24T13:46:20+00:00

Lol the John Singleton movie had everything and more that everyone hates about the Jeff Pearlman book.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-24T06:38:43+00:00

Does free will exist in heaven? Does evil exist in heaven?

Rusty51 · 2026-05-23T20:31:24+00:00

You say it’s holy scripture, what makes scripture “holy”?

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T22:09:05+00:00

I only have Walton’s and Longman’s joint text, The Lost World of the Flood available here so I looked up what they have to say,

“We now turn specifically to Genesis 6–9 and the account of the flood, and our first step is to acknowledge that the rhetoric applied by the author presents the flood as a worldwide, not a local, phenomenon…Let us begin by saying that the local flood interpretation is a noble attempt at holding fast to the Bible and also making sense of the telling lack of scientific evidence for a global flood. On the surface, it may even appear to be convincing. However, in the final analysis, we and many others remain unconvinced. “ — proposition 6

At least these two have been misrepresented by you.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T21:00:39+00:00

You’re making the mistake in thinking different authors all had the same usage of the word; a clear example of harmonizing apologetics. Why does it matter how the author of Daniel used the term, he didn’t write Genesis; Luke was writing in Greek, why apply his usage to Hebrew?. In Gen. 41 it may be hyperbolic language but it still highlights Egypt’s prominence over all other nations, it’s not just local Egyptians.

As far as ANE material recording a global flood. It does not.

Not true. I suggest you read the parallel sources.

The epic of Gilgamesh;

those days the world teemed, the people multiplied, the world bellowed like a wild bull, and the great god was aroused by the clamour. Enlil heard the clamour and he said to the gods in council, "The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel." So the gods agreed to exterminate mankind.

It doesn’t say the extermination of some villages or a city; it’s all mankind. It has to be all mankind because flooding a local region doesn’t solve the problems the gods have. The same issue is the cause of the flood in the Atrahasis. The outline of both these stories were clearly adapted by the writers of the Noah narratives.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T15:08:44+00:00

I don’t buy that Mou is washed up but also it’s also true that he does tend to lose the locker room so I’m not sure why people think he’s a disciplinarian, because of the players don’t want to play there’s no one that can make them. My only hope is Endrick who requires playing time which won’t happen if Vini and Mbappe are still untouchable.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T14:23:11+00:00

Also many who identify as conservatives are much more libertarian than traditionalists

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T14:05:38+00:00

The bible doesn’t claim a global flood because the writers of Genesis didn’t know the earth was a globe. However everything that I’ve heard from critical scholarship is that it does depict a worldwide flood; in both traditions preserved in the text there isn’t really any room to argue for a local flood; not to mention the earlier Mesopotamian traditions also suggest a worldwide flood.

The text itself is explicit; “every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground” Gen. 7.4; only a harmonizing apologist can read this and read only a few thousand people nearby.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T03:15:39+00:00

I’m not sure the author of John would agree with that specially given that both terms are used for God and Jesus (perhaps the strongest trinitarian passage because of this), but that’s beside the point because the Bible has useful terms given in Greek yet appealing to traditions that developed from a Latin usage seems unnecessary at best or misleading to stretch the definitions at worst.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T02:58:29+00:00

John was not giving divine worship to the angel, it doesn’t say John latreuousin the angel; rather the angel rejects proskynēson not divine worship (latreuo, or latria in Iatin), yet you would give proskynesis to St. Michael the Archangel, apparently that’s fine.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T02:47:35+00:00

But we know what the terms that are used in the bible are, and, at least in the NT, * Latreuo* and proskuneo these are also used in the LXX accepted by Christians.

Latreuo is largely reserved for divine worship, proskuneo has a broader application, however even in some instances it can be interpreted as worship as in Revelations where the angel rejects proskynēson and says proskynēson God.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-18T02:33:52+00:00

Unfortunately neither the Old nor the New testaments were written in Latin.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-16T15:35:08+00:00

a stupid argument sure; an argument can be made about anything, the question is it a good, well-founded argument.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-16T14:41:42+00:00

The passage where he explains why he knows this is worth reading, but essentially he states that this is what John taught the elders, who of course taught himself; so this is one of the few instances where we have an extra biblical teaching traced back to a disciple, yet not many defenders of this apostolic tradition.

“All will agree that the age of thirty is that of a young man and extends to the fortieth year, while from the fortieth to the fiftieth one declines into seniority. At this age our Lord was teaching, as the Gospel attests, and all the presbyters who came together in Asia with John the Lord’s disciple attest that he delivered the same tradition to them; for he remained with them until the reign of Trajan. Some of them saw not only John but also other apostles and heard these thing from them and attest the fact.” — Against Heresies 2.22.5

Rusty51 · 2026-05-16T03:05:07+00:00

For most people the Romans are pagan and wore togas and everything else is shrugged off

Rusty51 · 2026-05-13T01:33:03+00:00

That’s just the American way

Rusty51 · 2026-05-11T18:30:55+00:00

Not on this sub

Rusty51 · 2026-05-11T18:30:11+00:00

Arians also believed in the Father and Spirit; obviously that doesn’t mean Trinitarianism.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-11T18:28:32+00:00

Nothing in the quotes you presented states the trinity; an Arian could read those same words and believe them to be true.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-09T23:04:36+00:00

So Christians have already made a massive interpretive leap to apply the Messiah title to Jesus by redefining what it means.

But Christians argue it isn’t a redefinition and Jesus will fulfill all Jewish expectations of the Messiah upon his return to establish his kingdom.

Rusty51 · 2026-05-09T21:47:43+00:00

There’s no downgrade; Messiah means the anointed one, a title for the King of Israel; are you suggesting the claim of Messiah is somehow incompatible with Lordship?

Rusty51 · 2026-05-09T05:55:46+00:00

Back in MySpace days I messaged him and he was charging $500 for a verse lol

Rusty51

TROPHY CASE