quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I believe in God, and in a very specific religion, but I also think that the scientific method is an excellent means of establishing a common base of scientific knowledge that does not depend on religious faith
Exactly as Newton or Galileo might've said. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
King of Men, I believe that anyone can see which one of us is offering reasoned argument, and which one is just offering invective and pompous self-authority.
posted
I'm not sure if I will be able to word this correctly, but here's some of my reasoning for why the universe is stable.
Perhaps there were many universes before this one. Perhaps in those universes, the various constants were not random, and so nothing could develop. No laws of physics, no life, no anything. Eventually, those universes collapse. This continues happening until, eventually, a universe pops out whose variables remain constant. It doesn't matter how unlikely this is to happen, if a universe with constant variables occurs once every trillion trillion times, then the only time in which life will arise to question existance will be that trillionth trillionth time.
I have no problem beleiving in trillions of universes before this current one that were not stable.
In this view, there needs to be no god to create the universe. Forever how many times universes have existed without stability, this is the only time in which we are here to ask 'why? how?'
It seems ironic that in a thread questioning if the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm talking about universese that could have existed for trillions and trillions and trillions of years.
Ron, I find that quote much, much less satisfying. It requires me to accept the fact tha someone decided that I should exist. That we should exist. I always picture god existing, thinking "This is really boring and ugly. Maybe I'll create a universe. That'll liven things up a bit." I'm sorry if I'm being too crass.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WW, I have heard this argument before, of course. It is about as hypothetical as you can get, but I will allow that if you posit infinite time for infinite universes to be tried with infinite variations, you might think that eventually, somehow, you might come across a stable universe. But still, what keeps it stable? You still have not answered this question! What is different about it from any other, that might have had the same laws and constants for a moment, and then spontaneously changed?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that the universal constants are stable right now does not mean that I do not expect them to always be. I honestly would not be suprized to hear a study saying that some constant (say gravity) was beginning to destabilize. I would think that it's a shame that our universe is collapsing or changing in a way that will probably kill us, but there was no reason why we should expect otherwise.
There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:King of Men, I believe that anyone can see which one of us is offering reasoned argument, and which one is just offering invective and pompous self-authority.
Yes, I think so too.
quote:You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
It answers nothing! It's just a way of saying "That's the way it is, deal!"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've been reading along for awhile now, and see some people so adamant that their belief is the right belief that anyone who doesn't agree is beyond hope.
I was talking about things like this:
quote: You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
1) God made it that way as a by product of some other work he was doing. 2) Aliens from an advanced civilization got tired of the sloppiness and forced them that way. 3) The random physical forces that naturaly spawned the universe could only result in such constants. 4) God created it that way as described in the Bible. 5) God created it that way as described in the Koran. 6) Gods created it that way as described in the Greater Veda's. 7) The Force made it so. 8) God created it that way as described in the Silmarilion.
etc. etc. etc.
Hmmmm, may not be the only answer after all.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why not reverse that, and ask what would make it unstable? Why do you suppose instability is the default?
Seriously, the universe as observed appears to contain some stable constants. We don't know that those constants are actually stable, but they appear to have been stable for as long as we've been watching them. Maybe they don't change because they're constants; maybe they do change, but the rest of observed reality changes in such a way that their change is disguised.
The great thing about the scientific method is that it can address all of those possibilities. Religion, sadly, can speak to none of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Why does the universe contain constants?
1) God made it that way as a by product of some other work he was doing. 2) Aliens from an advanced civilization got tired of the sloppiness and forced them that way. 3) The random physical forces that naturaly spawned the universe could only result in such constants. 4) God created it that way as described in the Bible. 5) God created it that way as described in the Koran. 6) Gods created it that way as described in the Greater Veda's. 7) The Force made it so. 8) God created it that way as described in the Silmarilion.
etc. etc. etc.
Hmmmm, may not be the only answer after all.
You may as well go on to say 9) God created it as described in the Bible, with 1 angel watching 10) God created it as described in the Bible, with 2 angels watching 11) God created it as described in the Bible, with 3 angels watching ... infinity) God created it as described in the Koran, with 1 angel watching ... infinity) God created it as described in the Bible, as a by-product of other work he was doing, and this is AFAIK the same way he created it as described in the Koran, with 1 angel and 1 zogworf watching infinity) ...because he wanted Welsh corgis to exist infinity) ...because he wanted IMAX to exist ...
That is, the fact that you can embellish any explanation an infinite number of ways doesn't make it an infinite number of explanations.
You've only really got 3 explanations there: 1/4/5/6/7/8, 2, 3.
2 won't work: where did we get the aliens? Life implies a certain amount of order.
There's also, ah, 9: it's possible for a universe to have no constants, some, or many, and ours is lucky both in having them and having them in the tiny range that makes life possible. This becomes more plausible if we imagine an infinite, or finite but huge, number of universes. Rank speculation, but then this is Internet.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I honestly would not be suprized to hear a study saying that some constant (say gravity) was beginning to destabilize.
Gravity technically isn't a "constant" either, but I guess that's a separate discussion.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like the band playing on as the Titanic sank.
No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly. No one can change Ron's mind, and likewise, he can't change ours.
The only thing I do want to say to Ron is this: you constantly cite the Bible as the be-all, end-all Book of Answers. But how do you know that particular book is the one to give you answers? Among hundreds of other books, holy and secular, offering explanations of 'why' and 'how,' why do you believe that one so firmly? And saying 'because it says so' is not a valid answer.
*sighs* What makes me frustrated isn't that people believe, it's that their believing can come at the expense of others. Too often, we become so convinced we're right that we try and make everyone else around us believe as we do, and in so doing, lose the importance of the message in the process. To go off on a slight tangent, how is trying to control who people marry and what they can teach any different from what dictatorial Islamic nations do? The way I see it, sadly, leaves me bitter: we don't kill those who disagree. We just deny them the privilege of being human.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
I actually find it extremely unsatisfying. A few of the reasons why are nicely explained in Hume's "Of Miracles."
Further, the thought that your belief in the uniformity of the universe depends on your belief in certain Biblical passages seems to put the cart before the horse. If nature weren't uniform, your memory of what Psalms 33:6 has to say wouldn't be very reliable, would it?
Seems like the opposite of what you're trying to claim is true: your belief that nature is uniform is needed to justify your belief in what the Bible says.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
Hitoshi, I have answered that before in some other threads. Bible prophecy is the proof of the unique authority and reliability of the Bible. That's Bible prophecy interpreted objectively, allowing the Bible to define its own terms and symbols--nothing subjective. It works. Only the True God can know the future--the entire range of the future, with the complete outline of major events.
Destineer, if the universe were not "uniform" (I think you mean stable), we wouldn't exist, would we?
King of Men, can you offer another answer that is logical? If you think you can, be my guest! My declaration was a philosophical challenge. Are you up to it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Destineer, if the universe were not "uniform" (I think you mean stable), we wouldn't exist, would we?
I don't see why. Maybe we could exist in a non-"stable" universe, but only for very brief periods of time. I imagine that in a truly chaotic universe, with no constants or laws, people and things could pop in and out of existence at any time, for no reason at all.
Given this fact, my point is just that your belief in the stability (if that's your preferred word) of our universe isn't just a precondition of your scientific beliefs. It's also a precondition of your religious beliefs.
Your religious beliefs arise from sources (clergy and a book) that would be unreliable, or even impossible, if the world were unstable. So your religious beliefs can't justify your belief in the stability of the universe -- because they themselves assume the universe is stable.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
Sad? Not at all. It leads me to believe that since the universe doesn't care what happens, we humans can create our own beauty. Be it art, music, or just plain old living. That's why I look into the stars and see how much empty space is there, it makes me happy. Here on this planet, we have done so much. Beautiful things, horrible things, but things. (Hopefully, more beautiful that horrible things)
Fearful? No! Realistic, yes. I do not need to believe that there is a reason why we exist, or a creator who gives justification for our lives. We should come up with the ideas of justice, freedom and peace on our own, without some god making sure we do it.
Hopeless? Ironically, I feel the most hopeless when people start to kill people simply because of their religion. Hopeless when I see logic (that the earth has been around for billions of years) clouded by fuzzy pseudo-logic. Hopeless when the potential for good medicine is stiffled by religios texts (stem cell research).
Hopeless because humans themselves seem to be incapable of being moral creatures on their own. Why do we need some god to scare us into being good?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to hop in here, without reading all the pages, but one thing:
Paraphrasing One person said "Constants, stable! God the answer!" And got the replies "Easily possible that other unstable universes existed, before ours" and "Maybe they aren't stable, we'll see"
In regards to the first reply, yes, of course, and there's all sorts of other reasonable explanations you could posit. But the thing is, there's no evidence, either way. The only "logical" position, is to say "We don't know why, and have no current prospect of ever knowing, any one of these explanations, including both scientific and religious, are equally possible"
Believing anything else, is exactly that, believing. It's a faith based position.
posted
"The only "logical" position, is to say "We don't know why, and have no current prospect of ever knowing, any one of these explanations, including both scientific and religious, are equally possible""
Well, no. Some explanations are more possible then others, given all the information.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no. Some explanations are more possible then others, given all the information.
Well, no. Given all the information, only one explanation will be possible.
Given all the information we know, some are more possible than others. The problem, of course, is agreeing on what's known.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly.
quote: This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question.
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
I think that this 10 page thread has boiled down to peoples' beliefs that are not going to change. It is unfortunate, but I don't think anything productive can come from further debate.
(Also, I have finals, and really should be studying for those.) Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
Perhaps, but no one is saying "that's the end of it" except you. Well, you're saying "The answer is 'God' and that's the end of it." You are doing exactly what you are railing against here.
quote:How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
I don't find it satisfying at all. It's still just an unsupported assertion made by the scientifically ignorant thousands of years ago.
quote:You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
No, it answers nothing. It takes whatever the answer actually is and calls that variable "god" without giving any insight into what that variable actually might be. Instead of being the only answer possible, you've provided a non-answer and pretended to have arrived at something profound.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly.
quote: This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question.
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
I think that this 10 page thread has boiled down to peoples' beliefs that are not going to change. It is unfortunate, but I don't think anything productive can come from further debate.
(Also, I have finals, and really should be studying for those.)
Hey, someone paid attention to my post! I feel somewhat less n00by. But yeah, at this point, further discussion is irrelevant, as it will only produce the three things all debates create: resentment, denial, and pain.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, someone paid attention to my post! I feel somewhat less n00by. But yeah, at this point, further discussion is irrelevant, as it will only produce the three things all debates create: resentment, denial, and pain.
All debates do not create this, at least not in all participants and/or observers. Resentment and denial are personal issues each participant has to deal with not only in debate but also in life. While I feel for those who are unsuccessful in dealing with these issues, it's ludicrous to expect others to stop thinking and persuading simply to spare their feelings. If they don't like it, they can stop clicking and reading.
As for pain, well, sometimes pain is a good thing.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something's been bothering about this whole debate, and I finally know what it is. Ron et al. argue that the Earth is a certain age and was created by God in a certain way based on a compendium of texts they believe to have been divinely inspired.
In order for me to even BEGIN to consider their arguments as MERITING consideration, they're going to have to demonstrate the divinity of said scriptures. Otherwise, the point is completely moot.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Something's been bothering about this whole debate, and I finally know what it is. Ron et al. argue that the Earth is a certain age and was created by God in a certain way based on a compendium of texts they believe to have been divinely inspired.
In order for me to even BEGIN to consider their arguments as MERITING consideration, they're going to have to demonstrate the divinity of said scriptures. Otherwise, the point is completely moot.
David, I believe Holy scripture to be divinely inspired and have never for an instant believed that the earth is anything in the neighborhood of thousands of years old. It is clearly billions of years old and I have absolutely no problem with saying that. I also have no problem saying that scripture is "of God."
I don't however, believe that scripture itself is divine -- which is literally what you have said here -- the "divinity of scripture" being what you want proven to your satisfaction.
I know that a few people quote John and talk about how the Word is in God, and is God, and so forth, but I don't think that's a universal belief among YEC's.
At any rate, even if someone could prove to a skeptic that Scripture came "from God" I don't think that fact alone would convince me that the YEC's have it right. I seriously would be surprised if such proof would convince anyone who is more skeptical than I.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
Ron, I agree that it is a very satifying answer and one that I deeply believe. It is not, however, dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Honestly I find it considerably more satisfying to imagine how God created the universe through a complex, interconnected, endlessly fascinating process that began billions of years before we were able to even start appreciating it. That in no way denies the words of the Psalm - it infinitly enriches it. I believe that by tying ourselves to the convolutions needed to justify a literal interpretation, we often lose the wonder of the bigger picture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
So does "the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it" and "I created you and the rest of the universe last week, with all your memories intact, out of this stuff I kept in my basement."
You find it "satisfying" because you enjoy its limitations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1) I wrote how I despised people who lie or fabricate science or fabricate scripture to prove thier point. They "Bear false witness" in the name of God, or create falsehoods in the name of Truth.
That comment was not directed at KOM--unless he's been misquoting the Bible on purpose. It was more directed at overbearing science teachers who fail students because of their faith, or fame mongering ministers who knowingly falsify science in order to bolster YEC arguments.
2) Ron commented that, the only reason that constants are constant is because God made them that way, as described in a passage of the Bible. Some people did not like my response when I stated it could have just as likely been created by God as described in other relgions. I was not arguing that it was either God or Science. I was arguing that even if you discount Science, we don't have proof of which God.
3)My alien theory was also discarded because of the assumption that aliens could only be created in a universe of stable constants. Given infinite time anything is possible. Further, an advanced civilization capable of enforcing constants could have mastered time travel. So after millenia in a stable universe, these beings may have went back in time to create the stability in the universe that is where they come from.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, when we are dealing with the very nature of the whole universe, we are by definition talking on a cosmic scale. Only God is adequate when we are considering things on this scale. Some quantum physicists have concluded that God needs to exist to be the "Prime Knower" who collapses the probability wave for the entire universe. To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time. Furthermore, it needs to be intelligent, in order to know what it is doing in ordaining/maintaining the constants and "laws" needed to ensure the kind of stable universe inwhich life is possible. By the time you get done postulating all the things that this prime acting force must be, you might as well call it God, because by any other definition, that is what (Who) it would be.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've finally reached the super-exciting part where quantum concepts are acted upon as Proof of God. Nothing if not thorough!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: We've finally reached the super-exciting part where quantum concepts are acted upon as Proof of God. Nothing if not thorough!
Not really. What Ron said is just another iteration of the "God of the Gaps" phenomenon. We don't know what this is, so it's God.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time.
Why? You appear to be taking this as a given, but I'm not sure what logic necessitates it.
The only thing I can think of that might explain Ron's assumption of an unstable universe is a misunderstanding of entropy- the old "Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution" canard. He alludes to as much when he says that we shouldn't exist in a "stable" universe.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Bible prophecy is the proof of the unique authority and reliability of the Bible. That's Bible prophecy interpreted objectively, allowing the Bible to define its own terms and symbols--nothing subjective. It works.
Just so that I can see where you're coming from, what Bible prophecies do you believe have come true? Presumably you believe that the Bible has predicted enough things that it's most reasonable to give it the benefit of the doubt about what it says elsewhere?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time.
Why? You appear to be taking this as a given, but I'm not sure what logic necessitates it.
The only thing I can think of that might explain Ron's assumption of an unstable universe is a misunderstanding of entropy- the old "Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution" canard. He alludes to as much when he says that we shouldn't exist in a "stable" universe.
Much in the same vein as atheists who say all believers in the Bible think the earth and all that is in it is more or less 6,000 years old and this proves the foolishness of believers.
Though you will encounter Christians who insist this is so, that does NOT mean there are not Christians who do not believe it in precisely that way, and yet we believe the Bible is, "Of God."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
It's not, actually; what's sad and fearful is your need for a crutch to carry you through life. But in any case, sadness, fear, and hope have no bearing on what's actually true; so if indeed this is the only thing you can remark, you have effectively conceded the debate.
quote:King of Men, can you offer another answer that is logical? If you think you can, be my guest! My declaration was a philosophical challenge. Are you up to it?
Yes. You won't find it satisfying, but I can't help that. The answer is, "Why not?" Until you've shown that there is a good reason for things to be other than they are, you don't need to invent additional explanations. Stability is a lot easier to explain than change, in any case.
Another thing; you should please note that everything you've said about the universe applies equally to your god. What keeps your god stable?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Omega M., so many prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled to the letter, it would take weeks to go over it all. The usual starting point is the prophecies of Daniel. There are four lines of prophecy in Daniel: Chapter 2, chapter 7, chapters 8-9 (which are thematically linked by Gabriel), and chapters 10-12. All four prophecies are parallel, going over the same outline of history, with the same empires in the same sequence (with the exception of Babylon being omitted, since it fell prior to chapter 7).
The Jewish people suffered four major circumstances during the time of Daniel:
1. They had no kingdom. 2. They had king. 3. The sanctuary, the center of their religious practice, lay in ruins. 4. The people were scattered and in captivity among other nations.
The line of prophecy in Daniel 2 addresses the restoration of the kingdom, with the everlasting kingdom that God will establish without any human help. (See verse 44.) The line of prophecy in Daniel 7 addresses the restoration of the king, in the Person of the True King of Israel, the Son of God. See verses 13, 14. The line of prophecy in Daniel 8-9 addresses the restoration of the Sanctuary, in the form of the Temple of God in Heaven being revealed as the true center of Israel's religious practice, as the Day of Atonement is revealed to be the Day of Judgment. See Dan. 8:14. The line of prophecy in Daniel 10-12 addresses the restoration of the people. See Dan. 10:14.
The prophecy in Daniel 11-12 is so detailed, giving virtually a blow-by-blow account of palace intrigues, assasinations, poisonings, that match perfectly with the histories of Persia and Greece, that people who wish to deny the divine inspiration of the Bible have been forced into making desperate claims that the prophecies were written latter, during the time of the Maccabees. They have tried to justify this claim by pointing to the names of certain musical instruments, and saying those names were current in the second century B.C., not in the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. However, further research has disproven this claim, and in fact proven that the opposite was the case.
But even if we allow that Daniel was written during the second century B.C., that does not solve the problem for critics, because the prophecies that go beyond that time still continue to be accurate in their prediction of historical events, up through the time of Rome, and on to the "time of the end."
The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation. One of the most interesting prophecies is the one in Daniel 9:24-27. This gives a calendar which idenifies the year when Christ would be anointed as Messiah (at His baptism in 27 A.D.), and three and one half years later when He would be crucified, in 31 A.D.
Then, since Gabriel links this time prophecy with the time prophecy of 2300 days in Daniel 8:14, we see the starting point for that prophecy is also the one given for the seventy weeks (or literally seventy sevens) of Daniel 9:24, which history and the book of Ezra indicate was the fall of 457 B.C. We also see that we are also supposed to understand the days in Daniel 8:14 to mean literal years. This leads to the conclusion that the Investigative Judgment for the world began 2300 years after 457 B.C., or in other words, 1844 A.D. The Judgment of the world began in 1844. Soon the judgment will turn from exclusive consideration of the dead, to render final judgment for all those currently living, in the time of test during the final conflict. I believe the prophecies of the seven seals in Revelation portray the key events of history that have taken place since 1844. We are now living toward the end of the fourth seal, and the fifth seal when the judgment of the living begins, is nearing.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation.
How odd. Because, y'know, when I efficiently predict things, it's possible to identify them as correct predictions without a book-length presentation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are talking about one prediction. The Bible provides thousands of prophetic predictions, linked in an organized system of historical fulfillment. All these things must be presented in context, and compared to history. The intent is to show that every single Bible prophecy is valid. This is what requires a book-length presentation.
Come on, Tom--would it kill you to be fair-minded about these things?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, quick question(perhaps easily answered): How do you accept the Daniel 8:14 transposition of "days" to "years" but presumably not the same type of thing during the Genesis creation story? (forgive me if I'm incorrect in assuming you believe the creation story literally took a few days and not some longer time which the count of "days" represents)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The line of prophecy in Daniel 7 addresses the restoration of the king, in the Person of the True King of Israel, the Son of God.
Utter rubbish. Nothing in the Hebrew Bible (and I'll include Daniel in that despite much of it being written in Aramaic) ever uses such blasphemous terminology. The King of Israel is just that: a king. A human being; not a divine being. He's no more the son of God than any of us are the sons and daughters of God.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation. One of the most interesting prophecies is the one in Daniel 9:24-27. This gives a calendar which idenifies the year when Christ would be anointed as Messiah (at His baptism in 27 A.D.), and three and one half years later when He would be crucified, in 31 A.D.
No, it doesn't. The seventy "weeks" are from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple. There's no allusion whatsoever to your JC, Ron.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We also see that we are also supposed to understand the days in Daniel 8:14 to mean literal years.
Oh, so now when the Bible says days, it means years, but earlier when it said days, it meant days.
My biggest problem with may people who live for the Rapture is the same problem I have with survivalists in Montana and people who talk of their past lives. They are all so excited to be part of the main drama in the world that they are ready to surrender their lives.
So many people who talk of their past lives always talk about how they were close to famous people. The majority never had anything to do with history. Yet these people want to be important so much, the surrender the chance to be important in this life, an just spread the stories of the truly amazing things they have done before.
Survivalists who bunker down in Montana are daily disappointed that the world continues. They wait with excitement for the chance to play Adam, to be the progenitor of history.
Rapturists believe that they are special because they live in the end of times, unlike the generations before who were neither lucky enough to live in Jesus's time, nor our own. The previous generation were merely time fodder, holding place for the lucky few whom the Rapturists know are their deserving selves.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Not gonna lie, you deserve to watch me disappear while I thumb my nose at you, and you get to sit around and wait for the fires to engulf you.
But in all seriousness I agree with you, well put by the way.
Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son, or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son,
Of course the messiah is God's son. I'm God's daughter. "All God's chillun", you know?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
There's nothing at all in the Hebrew Bible that suggests anything about a supernatural savior. There is not only a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense I suggested, but actual information about who he is going to be, which completely contradicts the idea of him being some sort of supernatural being.
Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Rapturists believe that they are special because they live in the end of times, unlike the generations before who were neither lucky enough to live in Jesus's time, nor our own. The previous generation were merely time fodder, holding place for the lucky few whom the Rapturists know are their deserving selves.
My favorite bumper sticker:
"In case of Rapture... Can I have your car?"
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son,
Of course the messiah is God's son. I'm God's daughter. "All God's chillun", you know?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
There's nothing at all in the Hebrew Bible that suggests anything about a supernatural savior. There is not only a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense I suggested, but actual information about who he is going to be, which completely contradicts the idea of him being some sort of supernatural being.
Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
