TheologyWeb Campus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Revolutionizing Theology Discussion! en Sun, 19 May 2013 06:19:59 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png TheologyWeb Campus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Tooth Ache http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155920-Tooth-Ache&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 05:49:17 GMT Weird abscess - no temp sensitivity but lots of pressure sensitivity. It's pretty big - I can feel it in the roof of my mouth. Of course it picks now to go hot. Advil and ibuprofen are getting a workout... a big one.

Owww... ]]> Teallaura http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155920-Tooth-Ache Kings of Israel and Judah http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155919-Kings-of-Israel-and-Judah&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 04:09:59 GMT The book of Kings is structured in the form of a ‘combination lock’ which, going backward unlocks the door to ancient history, and forward, tracks the messianic timetable. The books contain a repeating formula where the accession of a king is synchronised with the reign of his contemporary in the neighbouring kingdom (whether Judah or Israel) followed by the number of years that he reigned. Thus, “In the (x)th year of king (A) of Israel, king (B) of Judah began to reign and he reigned (y)... The book of Kings is structured in the form of a ‘combination lock’ which, going backward unlocks the door to ancient history, and forward, tracks the messianic timetable. The books contain a repeating formula where the accession of a king is synchronised with the reign of his contemporary in the neighbouring kingdom (whether Judah or Israel) followed by the number of years that he reigned. Thus, “In the (x)th year of king (A) of Israel, king (B) of Judah began to reign and he reigned (y) years.”

At first sight it seems like a cinch - just do the math and the formula should work? It might have been easy if not for several little quirks in the Hebrew calendar. The reign of some kings appear one year less than the stated length of time because the ancient method of counting treated part-years, beginning and ending a person's reign, as if they were full ones. Even when a king died several weeks into the New Year it was counted as his final 'year.'

Then there was Judah's habit of treating the first full year as 'number 1' and Samaria's method of counting from the part-year instead. Understanding these small variations reveal a finely tuned timeline running beneath the surface of scripture.

Here is my chronological timeline for the Kings of Israel and Judah.

As you can see, there are slight differences to Old Testament chronologists, Thiele, Galil, Kitchen, Ussher. Any discussion welcome on these differences and the historical dates of the Hebrew kings. ]]> Apologetics 301 Ged http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155919-Kings-of-Israel-and-Judah Is there a Satan http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155917-Is-there-a-Satan&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 03:37:08 GMT by Greg Rasaka ______________________________________________ Perhaps now is the time to look closer at Satan. You do not have to agree with what I conclude, but I do ask that you give this careful consideration. Just because a lot of men have said something is so for centuries, does not make it truth. On the other hand, what God says holds as truth throughout the centuries. I also think there have been plenty of those, through the ages, who have seen things in a different light. The... by Greg Rasaka
______________________________________________

Perhaps now is the time to look closer at Satan. You do not have to agree with what I conclude, but I do ask that you give this careful consideration. Just because a lot of men have said something is so for centuries, does not make it truth. On the other hand, what God says holds as truth throughout the centuries.

I also think there have been plenty of those, through the ages, who have seen things in a different light. The difference is the publicity, or lack of publicity given to them. The things we will discuss here may go against your present way of belief, but we need to realize that often what we assume to be correct, is actually erroneous. If we have an incorrect concept of Satan, that can reflect negatively on so many other concepts in the Bible.

What does the Bible really say about Satan? Does the Bible actually teach that Satan is a being that is responsible for all evil? Does the Bible really teach that there is an evil being that is so powerful that he can ruin God*s creation, and keep it in turmoil for millennia? To hear what is commonly preached in pulpits, on the TV and the radio, you would certainly think so.

Yet I doubt that any one of those believes that Satan is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Yet he is supposedly wreaking havoc all over the world at any given moment. I think much of that way of thinking perpetuates because it give us someone to blame, as if mankind is incapable of such evil. Well, according to the Bible, man is completely capable of such evil.


A loanword is a word taken from another language that is completely or partially letter for letter. In other words, transliterated. This is done when there is no equivalent word or name in the second language. The problem is, often times there is a corresponding word in the second language. This causes confusion, especially when the translators take the liberty of picking and choosing when to translate and when to transliterate, depending on their understanding of the text. Consequently, the very meaning of the loanword is changed. Though not always practical, for the most part, a translator should translate, and leave the interpretation to the reader.

Satan is one of those loanwords. The word satan (Strong’s 7854), is a Hebrew word meaning, “adversary,” or “accuser.” I ask you to ask yourself as we go along, whether or not it is proper to assign the word satan as a proper name at all, or should it be rendered as adversary or accuser each time.

If you have a copy of Robert Young*s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, you may notice that he never uses the word Satan, but rather, Adversary. Sometimes he capitalizes it and sometimes not, depending on his own understanding of its use. In the New American Standard Bible, we find the word Satan used 18 times. The same word, satan, appears 9 other times in the Hebrew text, but is translated “adversary” or “accuser.” These are Numbers 22:22; 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings, 5:4, 11:14, 23, 25; Psalm 109:6.

The English reader is unaware that the same word, satan is used. There is another word satan (Strong’s 7854) that is spelled the same with one vowel sound different (according to the Masorets). This is the root from which 7854 comes. It is a verb meaning to accuse or oppose, but is also translated as a noun, “accuser” or “adversary.” It is never translated as “Satan.”

As I said, we need to understand if this word is actually ever applied as a proper name for an evil archenemy of God. If it is, then there is no problem with the rendering, Satan. If not, the rendering should be thrown out and replaced with adversary or accuser. For those who may not know, the ancient Hebrew language had only one case; in other words, no capitalization to help us out. We will take a look at the places where our English Bibles use the word Satan shortly, but I want to say a few words about the Greek first.

The corresponding word in Greek is satanos (Strong’s 4567), also a loanword from the Hebrew. Satan is found only once in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament, abbreviated LXX), in 3 Kings 11:14(1 Kings 11:14 in English Bibles). “Then the Lord raised up an adversary (satan) to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal line in Edom.” There is no mystery here. The man was an adversary to Solomon.

So in the LXX, what word do we find in place of satan? We find diabolos (Strong’s 1228), which is commonly translated, “devil.” The word means “slanderer” or “false accuser.” We have taken this loanword and made it as a title for this arch evil being. Is this proper?

Check out the renderings in the following passages. Wouldn’t it sound funny to render the word diabolos as “devil” in these three places?

"Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips (diabolos), but temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Timothy 3:11).

“...unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips (diabolos), without self control, brutal haters of good,...” (2 Timothy 3:3).

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips (diabolos) nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,...” (Titus 2:3).

The title “the devil” is not used in the Hebrew Old Testament at all. The King James Version uses the word “devils” four times when referring to false gods, to which sacrifices had been given.

I hope you can begin to understand how misleading our translations can be, both built upon, and perpetuating the idea of an arch evil being, we call Satan, or the devil. Ultimately, you must make up your own mind based upon your own diligent study. I hope you have learned by now, not to base your understanding upon popular opinion, or what the “authorities” claim as truth. I won*t tell you what to believe, but I will present some things for you to use as food for thought.


Let us begin in Genesis. It is commonly claimed that the serpent in the garden was Satan. If the serpent is taken literally in the garden, it would seem that the serpent was the cause of Eve to sin. If taken figuratively to represent the evil, rebellious nature of man, or one*s own voice of temptation, the element of a separate deceiver is removed.

In the case of Cain*s sin, a separate deceiver is not in the picture at all (unless one infers it), only the element of sin. God told Cain that “...sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).

Now let*s look at what God said in Gen. 6:5. “Then God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” That is a strong statement against man. Do we see God blaming man or Satan? God destroyed the world because of man*s evil nature, not because of Satan. If Satan was the cause of all this evil, wouldn’t it have made more sense for God to destroy Satan and spare mankind?

Say you were in charge of a group of kids, and you taught them proper, but the group of kids turned to evil ways because some dirt bag down the street had influenced them. Would you think it best to destroy the kids, or destroy the dirt bag? By destroying the dirt bag, you could remove the evil and straighten out the kids again. If you destroyed the kids, what would be gained?

The evil would still be there to infect the next bunch of kids. However, if the evil was a part of the kids themselves, and there was no outside influence, the only way to rid the evil would be to destroy the kids. Which did God do? He destroyed the “kids.” However, God saved eight people, and from them, the seed of evil was lived on in them and grew, remaining with us yet today.

Now look at Genesis 8:21. “... I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man*s heart is evil from his youth...” Here again man is accused of evil and Satan is nowhere mentioned. James states in ch.1:14-l5, “But each is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. When lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” There was a perfect opportunity to set the blame on Satan, but James puts the blame on man*s evil nature.

One may point out that later, in 4:7 James says, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” But does this passage necessitate an arch evil being? Getting rid of the loanword and translating diabolos instead, it can read, “Resist the slanderer (or false accuser) and he will flee from you.” In the time that James was writing, the Jews were most definitely the false accusers of the brethren. They slandered the followers of Christ unrelentingly.


Many contend that Satan was a fallen angel. This idea is taken mainly from two passages, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Both are erroneous conclusions. Let*s look first at Isaiah 14. By reading only selected parts of this prophecy, one can easily come to the conclusion that it is speaking of the devil and how he had fallen from his heavenly place.

But let*s not start in the middle. Instead, proper exegesis requires that we get the context first. The prophecy begins with 13:1 and states that it is an oracle concerning Babylon. He goes on telling of cataclysmic destruction, which was typical for prophetic language concerning the destruction of a nation. In verse 17, God says he will use the Medes to destroy them. Verse 19 again tells us the subject is Babylon and that they will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

The discourse continues into chapter 14, and verse 4 identifies the subject as the king of Babylon. Again, verse 22 identifies the subject as Babylon. Isaiah 13:1 through 14:23 need to be read as a whole. After you finish reading through 14:23, read Daniel 5:18-30, and compare the language. It is strikingly similar, and both are speaking of the arrogance of the king of Babylon.

Much of the error stems from 14:12 and the King James Version. “How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning.” First, the term Lucifer is merely the Latin translation of the Hebrew word helel (Strong’s 1966), meaning day star, star of the morning, or shining one. Isaiah 14:12 of the King James Version is the only place it can be found in the Bible. It comes from the root word halal (Strong’s 1984), meaning to be boastful. This has wrongly been taken as the former name for Satan. The reason for this is because of the preconceived idea that the text is speaking of Satan and his alleged fall from heaven.

Next, the word translated “heaven” is not shamayim (Strong’s 8064), the normal Hebrew word for heaven or sky. The word here is maal (Strong’s 4605), and it means above or upwards. With this in mind it is easy to see that the text is saying that the king of Babylon, morning star, has exalted himself above all, and God destroyed him as a result. The devil is not the subject at all. The term morning star is a figure of speech meaning brightness that is short lived.

Ezekiel 28 is a similar misconception. Verses 2 &12 plainly address the subject to be the leader of Tyre. But let*s back up and get the context. Chapter 25 tells of God*s judgment on Ammon, Moab, Edom and Philistia. The next judgment pronounced is that on Tyre. Chapters 26, 27 and 28:1-19 are dealing with Tyre. After this we have judgments on Sidon and Egypt. Why would an account of the fall of Satan be stuck in between? Such would not fit the context.

A king represents his nation, and so this prophecy is not only against the king, but also the nation as a whole. Chapter 26:2, 3, 4, 7 & 15 show the subject to be Tyre. In chapter 27, verses 2, 3, 4, 8 & 32 all reveal the subject to be Tyre as well. Then chapter 28 seems to be directed to the king of Tyre. Because of the lofty language used, it is commonly thought that the text must to refer to the devil, even though the text says it is the king of Tyre. Once an idea is cemented in tradition, it is very difficult to get rid of it.

Now 28:13 in particular causes difficulty, “You were in Eden, the garden of God.” One instantly thinks that this could only be Satan, as he was in the garden of Eden. (Eden is a loanword meaning delight). The LXX says, “You were in the delight of the paradise of God.” Above, we challenged the idea that the serpent refers to Satan (at least the common conception of Satan).

The text is God*s word and cannot contradict itself. The text says it is the king of Tyre, so what does the phrase “You were in Eden, the garden of God” mean? It has to be figurative like it is in Genesis. Apparently, Tyre must have been righteous, and found great favor with God at one time, but then became highly elated as a result, and God destroyed it. If this was an account of the fall of Satan, wouldn’t the text say so? Verses 2 & 9 both say, “You are a man and not God.” Was Satan a man? Certainly not traditionally.

The text speaks of how Tyre gained riches and wisdom by trade. How would this refer to Satan? What does Satan, a spirit, need with gold, silver and precious stones. Power is the desire of Satan (traditionally speaking). From 28:12 to the end of the chapter is highly figurative language. It is poetic and symbolic in nature. Is there really any sound reason to insert Satan as the subject here? It goes against the very context of the entire prophecy.

In 28:2,12, God tells Ezekiel to tell this to the king of Tyre. Now, suppose for a moment that the subject is Satan. How is Ezekiel supposed to deliver a message to Satan? Why must we force Satan into the context when the text itself tells us time and time again that the subject is Tyre and its king?

I don*t think that Satan butted in on God*s creation and deceived Adam and Eve. God could have removed Satan from the picture, but did not. God created Satan or evil for a purpose, and was part of God*s plan all along. No one or nothing can foil God*s plan.

You say, “God is righteous and cannot create evil.” The fact is, there is evil in God*s creation and if you say God did not create evil, then you are forced to say that God created something that was imperfect and became evil. Either way it boils down to God*s works. God foreknew this and therefore cannot be considered as brought on by an outside force. It was not an oversight on God*s part.

I know some of you may not see this the way I do, but let*s not let that interfere with our pursuit of truth. The Bible though, does say God created evil. Proverbs 16:4 states, “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” Also, Isaiah 45:7, “The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” Salvation was not a plan to counter man or Satan. God is in control of all his creation. ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 dan2222 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155917-Is-there-a-Satan <![CDATA[Jolie's Choice]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155916-Jolie-s-Choice&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 02:01:05 GMT What are your thoughts on Angelina Jolie's preventative mastectomy? I really don't know what to make of it. ]]> Sorority DesertBerean http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155916-Jolie-s-Choice Multiple water baptisms for a Christian? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155915-Multiple-water-baptisms-for-a-Christian&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 23:44:36 GMT Just wondering what you people think of multiple water baptisms for a Christian. I mean if a person was water baptized in a particular Christian church should they be water baptized again if they join another Christian denomination? What if such a person in their life has changed their Christian denomination several times do you think it's necessary to undergo water baptism each time a change took place? ]]> Christianity 201 foudroyant http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155915-Multiple-water-baptisms-for-a-Christian Harvard students denounce academic freedom http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155914-Harvard-students-denounce-academic-freedom&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 23:34:03 GMT I think we can safely say that any lingering respect this particular organization had is gone. (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/17/kennedy-school-students-demand-inquiry-into-immigration-thesis/6Izovn4svIW6jvlm7VSDFO/story.html) Treat the students from this high-class diploma mill as you would the students from Penn State who demonstrated in support of Joe Paterno: ---Quote--- Harvard students, outraged over a doctoral dissertation arguing that Hispanic immigrants lack “raw... I think we can safely say that any lingering respect this particular organization had is gone. Treat the students from this high-class diploma mill as you would the students from Penn State who demonstrated in support of Joe Paterno:

Quote:
Harvard students, outraged over a doctoral dissertation arguing that Hispanic immigrants lack “raw cognitive ability or intelligence,” this week urged the university to investigate how the thesis came to be approved and to ban future research on racial superiority.

The students presented 1,200 signatures to president Drew Faust and the dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, David Ellwood.

“Academic freedom and a reasoned debate are essential to our academic community,’’ the petition said. “However, the Harvard Kennedy School cannot ethically stand behind academic work advocating a national policy of exclusion and advancing an agenda of discrimination.”
Change the school motto from Veritas to Vanitas. Harvard has simply failed to live up to its stated purpose as a place for young people to receive a disinterested, dispassionate, and comprehensive education on whatever fields of study they wish to pursue.

(I find it rather interesting, though, that if you consider the universities as merely the media and government-approved institutions that make political decisions for the country, then these protests make perfect sense. In either case, Harvard might be a good place to go for building social networks, but don't expect to get anything like an unbiased or comprehensive education therein.) ]]> Civics 101 Epoetker http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155914-Harvard-students-denounce-academic-freedom A Prayer Request, of Sorts http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155913-A-Prayer-Request-of-Sorts&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 16:21:19 GMT I'm a bit on the busy side this week, so I hope to be back soon to reply to a few posts, but in the meantime I wanted to come on in and say this:

As some of you have probably already heard, Francis Beverly Monson - wife of Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - passed away yesterday morning. As a result, I'm sure that this is going to be a difficult time in Thomas S. Monson's life, and I think it would be a good idea if all of us here - mainstream Christians, Latter-day Saints, and otherwise - took some time to keep Thomas S. Monson in prayer right now, so that he might receive peace and comfort to help him through a trying season.

:pray::pray::pray: ]]> LDS - Mormonism JB http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155913-A-Prayer-Request-of-Sorts <![CDATA[Range Patrol #10: Destiny's Invasion]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155911-Range-Patrol-10-Destiny-s-Invasion&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 14:20:31 GMT http://www.tektoonics.com/rangtoon10/rangtoon10001.html One and a half pages to start....with a long awaited intro...of sorts. :hehe: http://www.tektoonics.com/rangtoon10/rangtoon10001.html

One and a half pages to start....with a long awaited intro...of sorts. :hehe: ]]> Tektonics.org jpholding http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155911-Range-Patrol-10-Destiny-s-Invasion <![CDATA[Stefcui's Pseudo-Science Cookery Book]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155910-Stefcui-s-Pseudo-Science-Cookery-Book&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 11:38:55 GMT
Quote:
'....The angels that came down to mix seed with females did not only procreate with humans - they procreated with animals and birds and fishes, creating what is called the Jurasic age....'
so says Stefcui in his thread titled: A YEC Perspective of Fossils without Tiggy, which is a tearaway thread from yec perspective of fossils in NS301.

I suspect that the origin of this sort of posturing is pseudo-scientific, or worse?

:eh: ]]> Natural Science 301 heavydisguise http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155910-Stefcui-s-Pseudo-Science-Cookery-Book <![CDATA[Don't blame your Church for bad teaching, blame yourself! M]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155909-Don-t-blame-your-Church-for-bad-teaching-blame-yourself!-M&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 07:55:23 GMT Who does God love? A natural view would say that He loves the good hearted. It would explain that in the following, poverty is a derived state, ie. those whom God loves He keeps them poor, meek, sorrowful, thus reducing the obstacles that stand in the way to entrance into His Kingdom. James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? One could even say that God protects... Who does God love? A natural view would say that He loves the good hearted. It would explain that in the following, poverty is a derived state, ie. those whom God loves He keeps them poor, meek, sorrowful, thus reducing the obstacles that stand in the way to entrance into His Kingdom.

James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

One could even say that God protects His own from bad teaching. If a good person found a church and he was taught that to be rich was a sign of God's favour, or that God's kingdom would be forwarded by resources from its members, God would actually work to prevent the good person from acquiring wealth (unequivocally taught in James 2 and other memorable verses, but conveniently ignored by some).

I started the thread with some thought, slept on it for a while, reformulated it to prune away some wrong directions it took (very easy, to go in wrong directions!) away from my main point and titled it so that it wouldn't rub faithful brothers and sisters in Christ the wrong way, not rattle their cages, but to rattle them in their comfortable assumptions, to disturb, to question the peace they have... not to leave them hanging, but to reach a right view, ensuring real peace, the assurance that God promised:

John 14:27 NET “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage.

Apparently, there is a peace that the world gives which is not a real peace, in the sense that it is supported by worldly principles. These principles could even be imparted by the church we attend.

Matthew 7:22 NET On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’

Here the individuals, who came forward for judgment, claimed to have been faithful, listing out their achievements.

My question is in two parts:

1. What are the fruits required by God?
2. Who is responsible for ensuring that these fruit appear in a believer's life?

I wanted to rattle the cage, ruffle a few feathers, pull some chains and name this thread, "Mainline Churches are the anti-Christ!", but better sense prevailed. Trolling for traffic is not the aim here, reaching a view that blesses is. My own view, stated below, may be changed to a better view, so I'm coming in with an open mind.

Don't blame your Church for bad teaching, blame yourself!

Matthew 7:7-11 NET “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! ]]> Theology 201 footwasher http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155909-Don-t-blame-your-Church-for-bad-teaching-blame-yourself!-M Have you ever heard... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155907-Have-you-ever-heard&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 04:47:54 GMT What's some of the weirdest music you've ever heard?

Here's one to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rGWgJ1RyI

This has a good example of Mongolian throat singing. When I first heard this, my reaction was something like, "Holy cow, people can make that noise? That's awesome!"

Note: the band is a metal band and the distorted guitars kick in about a third of the way through, so be forewarned. In case you don't like it. (I do, but most people don't.) ]]> Amphitheater Zymologist http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155907-Have-you-ever-heard For Stefcui and other YECs: arguing by assertion. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155905-For-Stefcui-and-other-YECs-arguing-by-assertion&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 00:11:44 GMT Gidday Stefcui,

This from you:-

Quote:
Originally posted by Stefcui
All of the fossils we have in existence can be accounted for by the flood of Noah's day. The flood brought with it large amounts of sediment which encased the organism, and it brought great depths of ocean to pressurize, and there was heating from within the earth's crust by the molten magma which softened the earth's crust and heated the layers of sediment and lithosphere. These conditions to create fossils were created all over the earth at the same time. The flood of Noah's day had the exact conditions needed to encase the animals as a frozen snapshot of the animals living at that time.
Is what is called "arguing by assertion".

Unless you can provide some kind of empirical justification for these words:-

"and there was heating from within the earth's crust by the molten magma which softened the earth's crust and heated the layers of sediment and lithosphere. These conditions to create fossils were created all over the earth at the same time."

- then they are no more than assertion.

Hence, I can counter them with assertions. Here is one:-

"There was very little molten magma around in the days of Noah."


So I've just shot down your assertion with an assertion. Naturally, you may counter with an assertion. However, I'll counter with a counter assertion.

Now if you are prepared to offer your evidence, then I'll offer mine. ]]> Natural Science 301 wattsr1 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155905-For-Stefcui-and-other-YECs-arguing-by-assertion Best Critique of the Theory of Evolution http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155903-Best-Critique-of-the-Theory-of-Evolution&goto=newpost Fri, 17 May 2013 19:18:53 GMT Which book do think gives the best critique of the theory of evolution? I'm just asking because next year in my children's ministry at church the theory of evolution is going to be discussed. ]]> Natural Science 301 siliconwafer http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155903-Best-Critique-of-the-Theory-of-Evolution A Crisis of Faith http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155901-A-Crisis-of-Faith&goto=newpost Fri, 17 May 2013 17:44:36 GMT Over the past few months, I have been studying the teachings of Brigham Young. Any Latter-Day Saint knows where this is leading. I have been studying the Adam-God doctrine, his ideas on the Trinity, Kolob, etc. I was shocked to find that the doctrines he preached on were not adding up with my knowledge on scripture as well as modern church teachings. This is on top of the actions of a couple of Mormons on the site, along with other things happening in my life. The point is, I am seriously... Over the past few months, I have been studying the teachings of Brigham Young. Any Latter-Day Saint knows where this is leading. I have been studying the Adam-God doctrine, his ideas on the Trinity, Kolob, etc. I was shocked to find that the doctrines he preached on were not adding up with my knowledge on scripture as well as modern church teachings. This is on top of the actions of a couple of Mormons on the site, along with other things happening in my life. The point is, I am seriously beginning to doubt my faith.

I would like to point out that I am on board with Intellectualism. This means that like Socrates and other great thinking minds, I feel the need to question beliefs and dig deeper than most people when it comes to doctrine and other philosophies. This could be what is getting me into trouble. But, rationality is my coping mechanism. And the problem with some BY teachings is they lack rationality.

Is there just something I'm missing when I read his teachings? ]]> LDS - Mormonism ke7ejx http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155901-A-Crisis-of-Faith An Unbelievable? Podcast http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155900-An-Unbelievable-Podcast&goto=newpost Fri, 17 May 2013 16:27:23 GMT What can we learn from our friends across the pond?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What's coming up on the Deeper Waters podcast? Let's talk about it today on Deeper Waters.

I actually just finished the interview for the Deeper Waters podcast about half an hour or so ago. This time, I interviewed Justin Brierley of Unbelievable? and talked with him about the show Unbelievable? and about the conference of the same name happening annually in the U.K.

Unbelievable? has been one of my favorite shows since I've started listening. Justin Brierley is a wonderful host/moderator who brings on excellent guests and who manages to remain quite neutral in his presentation. If you really want to hear both sides of a debate sometime, just turn on Unbelievable? and see what you find. As Justin and I discussed, sometimes the atheist does do better. Sometimes the Christian does better. That is life. For those interested, I have often written into the show and spoken about how badly a Christian has done in debate. In fact, for those even more curious, I was once a guest on the show. (See January of 2010 for my debate there on the problem of evil after the Haiti earthquake.)

Justin and I talk on the show about the state of the church in the U.K. Contrary to what I used to think, it is not a spiritual wasteland over there. There are bright lights that are shining, and I consider Unbelievable? to be one of them. We need to keep in mind that there are strong pillars of Christianity that exist over there, including someone like N.T. Wright.

We also talked about the show and how it has come along and the great guests that have come on. Justin said some guests have been good and some haven't. Some could be great writers and just not meant to a debate style like that which is done on Unbelievable?. The show has also been an education for him, something I've noticed in my brief time hosting a podcast. The show is often a chance for me to get my own education in interviewing guests on so many great topics.

There was also talk about the Unbelievable? conference that takes place annually in the U.K. This year, the conference will be focused highly on C.S. Lewis, seeing as it's the 50th anniversary of his death. There will be discussions on Lewis and the imagination, Lewis and the problem of pain, and even what would C.S. Lewis say to the new atheists?

I highly encourage my readers to be listening to the Deeper Waters podcast. It's really exciting to be bringing out the best in Christian apologetics. We plan on having more and more scholars show up. Yet while listening to my show, I also encourage you to listen to the Unbelievable? podcast. It is a podcast that I never miss and if I'm on vacation and have to listen to two podcasts one after the other, well that's what I do. Unbelievable? is that good.

For those interested, the interview with Justin Brierley can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155900-An-Unbelievable-Podcast