Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Categories
Atheism
Control vs Anarchy
Food for thought
Politics
rhetoric
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
I'll be back in a few hours.Charles
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks @ 182
Unlike some here, if the evidence existed that Jesus was the son of god, or if a god ever existed, I would change my viewpoint.
lol - no you wouldn't. The evidence that God supernaturally revealed to Daniel when the Messiah would appear has been laid out @ 12, 23, 29, 64-67, 71, 167, 173 and 181. You have studiously, carefully ignored 11 detailed and some lengthy posts. You know precisely what evidence you are ignoring. We know because, as is your style, you keep trying to move the goal posts to other subjects and remain abjectly silent on every fact you can not refute, all the while pretending no evidence has been presented. Next up, Armand Jacks says none of the evidence is believable. Disbelief is neither a refutation nor a fact, it is merely your a-priori state of mind. "Your Honor, I have never believed those signs really meant STOP".Charles
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
krock:
Are you for real? So you don’t disabuse your students for their faith, you just suggest that the very founder of their faith is unecessary in their lives, then you proceed to let everyone on here know that you’ve even turned some of them away from their faith—even gloating about it—freeing them from the prison of Christianty. Nope, you don’t disabuse your students at all.
I don't try to convert christians into atheists, but I have no problem with people who do. After all, one of the foundations of christianity is the active attempt to convert people to their religion. I don't see one as being any more manipulative than the other. But I choose not to do it because I think that people should make up their own minds without undue influence from others.Armand Jacks
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
krock: Yet you seem fairly certain your agnosticim is perfectly reasonable. Weird…! Yes. "Fairly" certain. Not absolute certainty. Unlike some here, if the evidence existed that Jesus was the son of god, or if a god ever existed, I would change my viewpoint. So far, all I have heard is people using the bible as evidence of god's existence. Or presenting a single account of 500 witnesses as if it was 500 witness accounts. Personally, I think that the accounts of Jesus are based on a real person, or an amalgam of a few people. But that is a far cry from elevating him/them to the level of deity. KF calls this hyperskepticism, as if using that word is an argument in his favour. I am also skeptical about aliens abducting people and probing their anuses, even though there are numerous first person accounts of this happening.Armand Jacks
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 177
The widely held view that the book of Daniel is largely fictional rests mainly on the modern philosophical assumption that long-range predictive prophecy is impossible . . . But objective evidence excludes this hypothesis on several counts:
Another long held fallacious belief was that Daniel was a fabrication because Daniel cited "Belshazzar the king" (Dan 5:1), who offered Daniel the "authority as third ruler in the kingdom" (Dan 5:16), not second, but third in authority. The problem is that from the time of Cyrus' capture of Babylon in 539 B.C. until A.D. 1854, secular historians "knew" that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and there was zero historical or archaeological record of a "Belshazzar" having ever existed. But in A.D. 1854, Sir Henry Rawlinson discovered the Nabonidus Chronicle (cuneiform tablet) and also Nabonidus Stela, and Nabonidus Cylinder (at the British Museum) in which Nabonidus prayed for his son "Belshazzar" and essentially made Belshazzar co-regent of Babylon in Nabonidus' absence. Since Nabonidus was first in the kingdom and his son Belshazzar was second, then Daniel would logically have had third authority in the kingdom following Belshazzar, exactly as was offered in Dan 5:16. So Daniel's account was validated as accurate almost 2400 years after the fact. But here's the thing. If Daniel was fabricated in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. how would the "forger" have known that Belshazzar existed as Nabonidus' son when history had already by then forgotten him? This in addition to the fact pointed out @ 23 that regardless of being forged in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., Daniel's prophecy of the 69 weeks, was still valid, and still given in advance of it being fulfilled, exactly as written. For nearly 2,400 years, the book of Daniel was historically correct and only in A.D. 1854 did the historians catch up.Charles
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
DS, I should add the beige colour is original, all the paintings and trees etc in front were added later (note how small they are), and of course the statue; there is another near the national stadium and there is another that was intended but was rejected by the public who did not want an abstract piece; think that went to some museum or other. The windows in the house seem to have been upgraded, likely to fit with air conditioning. Next door more or less was an open lot with a huge silk cotton tree [source of kapok fibres], that was turned into townhouses, as was another large lot on my side of the main road, now a 4-lane. Didn't know US Pres Obama visited the museum. I see a landrover P4 pickup, that I don't know about. Maybe that lived in St Ann was it. KFkairosfocus
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
KF,
He bought a derelict house on a big lot ‘cross the main road from my street, and drove a BMW — light greeny blue as I recall (roughly this , lighter tint). He played scrimmage on his front lawn. Never talked with him, occasionally waved. The house is now the museum.
Well, that's pretty cool.daveS
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
FFT6A: Last evening, in FFT5, we looked at the familiar extraordinary; it is almost amusing to see how this has been almost studiously pushed aside. One hopes that the latest focus for hyperskeptical dismissiveness, heptades, will now settle down. At this point, we have to deal with a key conclusion in 153:
. . . a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch. In effect, rocks — even refined and carefully organised rocks — have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation. At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this — face an impassable gulch. One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience’s compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises. Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to. But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others. This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.)
What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us? That's rather like a point R W Hamming made in addressing a thought exercise that counter-balances one of the mythical paradigm cases of empirical investigation, the dropping of a musket-ball and a cannon-ball from the famous leaning tower of Pisa. And yes, the very same News who so many hyperskeptics sneer at brought this to attention:
Let us next consider Galileo. Not too long ago I was trying to put myself in Galileo’s shoes, as it were, so that I might feel how he came to discover the law of falling bodies. I try to do this kind of thing so that I can learn to think like the masters did-I deliberately try to think as they might have done. Well, Galileo was a well-educated man and a master of scholastic arguments. He well knew how to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin [--> which is actually about location vs extension], how to argue both sides of any question. He was trained in these arts far better than any of us these days. I picture him sitting one day with a light and a heavy ball, one in each hand, and tossing them gently. He says, hefting them, “It is obvious to anyone that heavy objects fall faster than light ones-and, anyway, Aristotle says so.” “But suppose,” he says to himself, having that kind of a mind, “that in falling the body broke into two pieces. Of course the two pieces would immediately slow down to their appropriate speeds. But suppose further that one piece happened to touch the other one. Would they now be one piece and both speed up? Suppose I tied the two pieces together. How tightly must I do it to make them one piece? A light string? A rope? Glue? When are two pieces one?” The more he thought about it-and the more you think about it-the more unreasonable becomes the question of when two bodies are one. There is simply no reasonable answer to the question of how a body knows how heavy it is-if it is one piece, or two, or many. Since falling bodies do something, the only possible thing is that they all fall at the same speed-unless interfered with by other forces. There’s nothing else they can do. He may have later made some experiments, but I strongly suspect that something like what I imagined actually happened. I later found a similar story in a book by Polya [7. G. Polya, Mathematical Methods in Science, MAA, 1963, pp. 83-85.]. Galileo found his law not by experimenting but by simple, plain thinking, by scholastic reasoning. I know that the textbooks often present the falling body law as an experimental observation; I am claiming that it is a logical law, a consequence of how we tend to think . . .
Coherence, factual adequacy and elegantly balanced explanatory power are far more powerful tools than, often, we are wont to believe. Indeed, the thought experiment was a favourite analytical tool for Einstein, and it was pivotal to the rise of Relativity. As in, taking a ride on a beam of light. This ties back to the view that mathematics is substantially the logic of structure and quantity, which we may freely explore because we are responsibly and rationally significantly free. Okay, let's pause for the moment so that I can go back to RW. Later this morning, DV. KFkairosfocus
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Folks, "weeks" in the text is well understood to refer to heptades, seven-year spans. That span crops up again and again in the biblical context and is doubtless connected to the concept from Gen 1 - 3 that it is the number of a completion. I am astonished that there was need to belabour dictionaries, this one is a no-brainer. But then, perhaps even I am underestimating the influence of selective, self-congratulatory hyperskepticism. (Which is ALWAYS connected to wishful thinking and hyper-credulity elsewhere. Notoriously, the evo mat origins myth of hydrogen to humans via dirt without any breathed-in fire.) KF PS: I think I should add a link and a clip from the CD version of the NIV Study Bible, specifically, from the included Dictionary:
The widely held view that the book of Daniel is largely fictional rests mainly on the modern philosophical assumption that long-range predictive prophecy is impossible . . . But objective evidence excludes this hypothesis on several counts:
1. To avoid fulfillment of long-range predictive prophecy in the book, the adherents of the late-date view usually maintain that the four empires of chs. 2 and 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. But in the mind of the author, "the Medes and Persians" (5:28) together constituted the second in the series of four kingdoms (2:36-43). Thus it becomes clear that the four empires are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman . . . . 2. . . . Linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which furnish authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the second century B.C. . . . ) demonstrates that the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Furthermore, as recently demonstrated, the Persian and Greek words in Daniel do not require a late date [e.g., the prior Assyrian Empire was familiar with Greek musicians and their instruments]. Some of the technical terms appearing in ch. 3 were already so obsolete by the second century B.C. that translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) translated them incorrectly. 3. Several of the fulfillments of prophecies in Daniel could not have taken place by the second century anyway, so the prophetic element cannot be dismissed. The symbolism connected with the fourth kingdom makes it unmistakably predictive of the Roman empire (see 2:33; 7:7, 19), which did not take control of Syro-Palestine until 63 B.C. Also, the prophecy concerning the coming of "the Anointed One, the ruler," 483 years after "the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (9:25), works out to the time of Jesus' ministry.
Objective evidence, therefore, appears to exclude the late-date hypothesis and indicates that there is insufficient reason to deny Daniel's authorship.
This is FYI, I point it out as information, not because I have any high hopes that a discussion of Bible prophecies would be likely to move the selectively hyperskeptical.kairosfocus
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
jdk: I also am very interested in some of the metaphysical issues, and don’t rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence.
There is only one type of intelligence: the personal type. Rationality presupposes a free responsible rational person who is in control of his thoughts and actions. Every other concept of intelligence is incoherent.
jdk: But I definitely think that all the human conceptions of supernatural beings (for instance, the Christian God) that take an active interest in the lives of mankind are myths: that is the sense in which I am a strong atheist.
Why are you convinced of the absence of active interest?Origenes
April 11, 2017
April
04
Apr
11
11
2017
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 174:
Suppose there were a devout Jew by the name of Jesus in the right place at about the right time.
That right time would be preconception and prenatal. Let's suppose that he persuaded his mother to give birth to him in 5 B.C. and in Bethlehem and then when he just a few weeks old he persuaded both his mother and father to flee with him to Egypt. Really, really clever hoax.Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument that Charles 's interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel is correct. Does that make it true? Not necessarily. There are other possible explanations. Suppose there were a devout Jew by the name of Jesus in the right place at about the right time. Let's suppose he was well aware of the prophecy in Daniel. Let's suppose he had persuaded himself and others that he had the power of miraculous healing, for example. Let's suppose that these experiences had convinced him that he was the Messiah foretold in the prophecies and this certainty had attracted followers who also became convinced that his claim was true. Would that be a fulfillment of the prophecy or would it be a genuine but misguided man who knew of the prophecy and took advantage of it? I am not saying that any of the above is necessarily true but the fact that it is at least possible tends to undermine the probative value of that prophecy as far as the claims of Christianity are concerned. The other obvious problem with the claims of fulfilled prophecies is confirmation bias. Do we have any idea of how many prophecies made in that period failed so that we could make a comparison with the number of successful ones and calculate if the number was greater than we might expect by chance?Seversky
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
jdk @ 169
If this is a misunderstanding, you ought to take it up with the new King James version of the Bible, not me.
The misunderstanding is entirely yours. The word is correctly transliterated as "weeks", yes from heptad or sevens, a group of seven, but seven what? In English we don't have an equivalent word other than "heptad". The meaning of the Aramaic/Hebrew word "subua" is 7 days or 7 years. I showed you that in the Brown Driver Briggs definition. I also showed you in the context of Dan 9, the intended meaning is years, not days. You needn't take my word for it. I already showed you "The Complete Word Study Dictionary" entry for H7620. Here also is the The "Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary" entry and the "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" entry (3 out of 3):
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary In Daniel, sh?vûa? is used to indicate a period of "seventy weeks of years" (Dan. 9:24-27). Thus, his vision spanned 490 years (the final seven being the Tribulation). In v. 27, the seventh week is divided into two halves (or half of a "seven"). Ezekiel proposed a seven-day Passover feast in his reconstructed temple area (Ezek. 45:21). A period of seven days or multiples of seven days was the period of time needed for a number of things in Israel; for example, a woman was unclean for seven days after the birth of a son and two weeks after the birth of a daughter. BDB 988-89, KB 4:1383-84, NIDOTTE 4:20-24, STRONG , TWOT 2:897-99.
Thoralf Gilbrant, ed., “8094,” in The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary – Sin-Taw, (Springfield, IL: World Library Press, Inc., 1998), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "8094".
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament While in Deut. 16:9, discussed above, sh?b??a (a represents a period of seven days, in Daniel 9:24, 25, 26, 27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. The land had been fallow for seventy years and thus repaid the Lord the seventy sabbatical years owed to him for the prior seventy periods of seven years (Daniel 9:2; Jeremiah 25:12; cf. 2 Chron. 36:21!). Just as Daniel is in prayer concerning this matter, the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, sh?bûa? (Daniel 9:24ff)! Note also the apparent reference in Daniel 12:11 to half of Daniel's last seventy (Daniel 9:27); it is 1290 days, approximately three and a half years. Thus here it means years.
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce K. Waltke, ed., “2318: ????????, ??????????,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 899.
[Hmmm Wordpress previews Greek & Hebrew letters correctly but then corrupts them upon posting]Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
@ rvb8... re post #168 Are you for real? So you don't disabuse your students for their faith, you just suggest that the very founder of their faith is unecessary in their lives, then you proceed to let everyone on here know that you've even turned some of them away from their faith—even gloating about it—freeing them from the prison of Christianty. Nope, you don't disabuse your students at all. Who ever you are, you're an idiot..!KRock
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
@ jdk #169 Lol... Did you even read what Charles posted? Try reading the passage in its entire context next time...KRock
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
@Armand Jacks Yet you seem fairly certain your agnosticim is perfectly reasonable. Weird...!KRock
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
to Charles: If this is a misunderstanding, you ought to take it up with the new King James version of the Bible, not me. I looked at several Bibles online, and a couple of commentaries, and they all either used weeks, or just left it as sevens, with the commentaries calling those weeks. But the big point is that these are interpretative translations, and most people, including some major translations, understood it be to be weeks. Your attempts to correct these "misunderstandings" by considering these "years" is clearly contrived. Such arguments, although meant to convince the non-believer, in fact weaken the appeal of Christian apologists and push people away from taking them seriously.jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Charles, my Chinese hosts, including the members of the local Secretariat are wonderful people. I don't go around finding missionaries and have them expelled; that's far too much ideology even for me. No! These halfwits make a song and dance about Jesus, as if wanting to be expelled. Several of my students are Christian, two are Muslim, and I never disabuse them of their faith. My knowledge of Chrisitian history is sufficient to give these students a heads up, before they continue their studies in the US, UK, or Oz, Canada, where ever. I always explain that with their friendships, families, and just plain humanity, Christ is as unecessary as a Rolls Royce. You insult me. Fine, have at it. Small minded religious types are my bread and butter. I have also reconverted several students and released them from the prison of Chrisitianity. These reconverted are not the Catholics in my class, they are the Born Again types, who only went with the music and group love. 'Here I stand I can do no other!' Have a nice day:)rvb8
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
jdk @ 159:
As I expected, the passage in question is translated as 70 weeks, or 490 days, not 70 times 7 years.
A misunderstanding, but otherwise an intellectually honest argument. The English word "weeks" is translated from the Hebrew "shabua" (Strongs H7620):
Dan 9:25 NASB "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeksH7620 and sixty-two weeksH7620; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew dictionary gives the definition for H7620 "shabua" as: 1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week 1a) period of seven days, a week 1a1) Feast of Weeks 1b) heptad, seven (of years)
Someone back then would be thinking about the foreseeable future, one that would make sense to his listeners, not some unimaginably far off time 500 years in the future.
No, because the context is eschatological. Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and could not be restored in a mere 7 x 7-day weeks or 62 x 7-day weeks. Further, Dan 9:24 refers to "finish the transgression", "make an end of sins", "bringing in everlasting righteousness" and to "seal up vision and prophecy". That context dictates the definition 1b heptad, seven (of years) Here also is The Complete Word Study Dictionary entry for H7620:
sab?ua: A masculine noun meaning seven; a week, a group of seven days or years. It indicates a unit of seven: a week, seven days (Lev_12:5; Deu_16:9); of a marriage feast (Gen_29:27-28); a week of days (Dan_10:2-3). It is used in a technical sense to name a festival, the Feast of Weeks (Exo_34:22; Deu_16:10). It refers to seven years, a heptad of years (Dan_9:24-27).
Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.kairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
He bought a derelict house on a big lot 'cross the main road from my street, and drove a BMW -- light greeny blue as I recall (roughly this , lighter tint). He played scrimmage on his front lawn. Never talked with him, occasionally waved. The house is now the museum.kairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Certainty in anything is a dead end to the advancement of knowledge.
Certainly?Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
As I expected, the passage in question is translated as 70 weeks, or 490 days, not 70 times 7 years
This was also relatively easy to find.Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Krock:
There’s no reference point in agnosticism, just a position of uncertainty—which as far as I am concerned, really isn’t a position.
Yet it has resulted in most of the major breakthroughs in science over the last few hundred years. Certainty in anything is a dead end to the advancement of knowledge.Armand Jacks
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
KF:
PS: We may note the willful speaking in disregard to truth when it has been pointed out repeatedly that the material issues and questions on the ongoing abortion holocaust of 800+ millions in 40+ years and mounting up at a million per week, were substantially and in my view more than adequately answered in several recent threads, cf 103 above for links.
Since you have again brought up abortion in this thread, I assume that I can talk about it. Have you completely ignored my often stated desire to eliminate the demand for abortion? Rhetorical question. Of course you have. You keep talking about your Wilberforce style of reformation. Yet completely ignore the fact that it still required massive blood loss to be realized. I have repeatedly presented an approach that has been known to greatly reduce the demand for abortion. An approach that you have repeatedly ignored because it requires us to admit that humans are sexual animals and involves an honest teaching of sex education. The big question that you must ask yourself is, what is more important? Significantly reducing the number of abortions, which my approach has been demonstrated to do, or lying to our youth that sex for pleasure is a sin?
I regard the holocaust-enabling behaviour on display in this thread — please, think again before playing trollish games — is meant to derail another perhaps even more vital line of discussion. So, let us proceed over the next little while.
Since I have repeatedly stated that my goal is to reduce the demand for abortion, your mischaracterization (outright lying) about my motives becomes very wearisome. But if the only way you can defend your position is to lie about mine, knock your socks off. You only make yourself more foolish. If you ever want an honest discussion of the subject, feel free to start. But if you prefer to toss out the same incoherent ramblings, that is your right as well.Armand Jacks
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
I find agnostics far more confusing than self professing atheists. There's no reference point in agnosticism, just a position of uncertainty—which as far as I am concerned, really isn't a position.KRock
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
I said I wasn't going to get involved in this prophecy business, but curiosity got the better of me and I googled Daniel. The first site that came up was https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+9&version=NKJV, the new King James version. As I expected, the passage in question is translated as 70 weeks, or 490 days, not 70 times 7 years. Someone back then would be thinking about the foreseeable future, one that would make sense to his listeners, not some unimaginably far off time 500 years in the future.
The Seventy-Weeks Prophecy 20 Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God, 21 yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering. 22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand. 23 At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision: 24 “Seventy weeks[a] are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of[b] sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. 25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street[c] shall be built again, and the wall,[d] Even in troublesome times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 152
In the first quote you tell us that your holy book is better than the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu holy books, bcause….?
Because it records genuine fulfilled prophecies, one of which is forensically provable that God revealed when Messiah would appear. Daniel chapter 9 states that in 538 B.C. (Dan 9:1-2) God revealed to Daniel that from a decree issued to rebuild and restore Jerusalem there would be 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the Messiah would appear (Dan 9:25). In 458 B.C. Artaxerxes I issued that decree in his 7th year (Ezr 7:8-14) plus 483 years ends in A.D. 26. In A.D. 26 Jesus was baptized and proclaimed himself that Messiah (Luke 4:18-20). Dan 9:26 prophecies that the Messiah would then be cut off, and in A.D. 30 Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples (Nisan 14th on the Essene 364-day solar calendar) and one day later was crucified as the Passover Lamb of God on the Passover of the Jews (Nisan 14th on the calculated Rabbinic calendar), a 1 day separation occuring only in A.D. 30. Jesus prophecied that the Temple would be torn down leaving not one stone upon another. And in A.D. 70 Titus did just that. Other holy books... not so much.Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
sneeringly supercilious selective hyperskepticism
For some reason I read this in the voice of Daffy Duck. Edit: BTW, did you really know Bob Marley?daveS
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
JDK, I describe something that is regrettably long familiar. Who de cap fit, let 'im wear it, as ole Bob M -- oddly, a neighbour from long ago -- used to sing. Or, echoing Locke citing Jesus: a lazy and untoward servant. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18