How come most YEC are not preterist?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hi, a podcast is audio not video. I just did an episode very specifically on the binding of satan.

I wrote a commentary on Matthew 24 you can find at http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

[Cerebrum123]

Hi, a podcast is audio not video. I just did an episode very specifically on the binding of satan.

I wrote a commentary on Matthew 24 you can find at http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

Thanks, I will check it out.

[Cerebrum123]

I have been reading the link you gave me, and it has so far been very interesting. It's a very large article, and it may take me some time to complete it.

[seanD]

Wouldn't YEC and preterism be more of an oxymoron? If you interpret most eschatological passages in a non-literal way in order to solve the conflict with "this generation," wouldn't you be more prone to interpret Genesis in a similar non-literal way to solve the conflict with science? On the other hand, it makes sense that a futurist, who interprets things more literally, would interpret Genesis more literally.

[Darfius]

Hi, a podcast is audio not video. I just did an episode very specifically on the binding of satan.

I wrote a commentary on Matthew 24 you can find at http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

And you can find a refutation of Dizzle's podcast here, Cerebrum. Along with some arguments for why Satan is clearly not bound.

[lilpixieofterror]

And you can find a refutation of Dizzle's podcast here, Cerebrum. Along with some arguments for why Satan is clearly not bound.

Which you really show why you're not worth debating on this issue.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Cerebrum, both SeanD and Darfius are on my ignore list, for reasons which are obvious if you read their venom-laced rants in the eschatology forum. Darfius much more so than Sean. Life is too short for me to interact with a jackass. Im the subsequent episodes I answer a few followup listener questions, which I do continue to do.

I think perhaps I will alert JP Holding to Darfius' rants. He has a much higher tolerance for people like that, and takes them down pretty handily. Or maybe not, since quite honestly, the second I leave this thread, I will have forgotten about him. Like every body has one, every forum has one too.

[seanD]

I personally don't have anything against JPH, but it's strange that you would put me in the category of a person who has "venom-laced rants," yet would praise someone like Holding. I may be aggressive and abrasive at times, but I wouldn't consider my style anywhere near as "venom-laced" as Holding's style, or Darfius for that matter.

[Darfius]

I would love for anyone, whether it be "dizzle", Holding or some other hired gun to actually deal with the arguments I've presented head on, rather than handwaving and red herring.

Sean is a gentleman and while I am often blunt and sometimes short, I try to stay away from unwarranted personal attacks and often try to give those I disagree with the benefit of the doubt. I doubt it's a coincidence that "dizzle" has censored what I perceive to be two of the superior current defenders of futurism on this forum.

That being said, if I wasn't disliked by a woman who is a self-professed former dabbler in the occult, presumes to have the authority to teach men and does so from as public a platform as possible, I'd be afraid I was not doing my job. It wasn't Adam that was deceived.

[seanD]

I personally don't have anything against JPH, but it's strange that you would put me in the category of a person who has "venom-laced rants," yet would praise someone like Holding. I may be aggressive and abrasive at times, but I wouldn't consider my style anywhere near as "venom-laced" as Holding's style, or Darfius for that matter.

Just to clarify, I was saying that I don't think my style or Darfius' style is anywhere near as bad as the style of others on this board (just it case it sounded like I was excluding my style from Darfius).

[Cerebrum123]

dizzle, I'm not very good at getting details from listening to someone talk, at least when I'm not there in person. It's a reason I usually don't like books on tape. If you have a written version of your podcast, or know of someone who makes similar points in written form, then I would appreciate a link.

[OU812]

That being said, if I wasn't disliked by a woman who is a self-professed former dabbler in the occult, presumes to have the authority to teach men and does so from as public a platform as possible, I'd be afraid I was not doing my job. It wasn't Adam that was deceived.

Troll is fail.

[lilpixieofterror]

That being said, if I wasn't disliked by a woman who is a self-professed former dabbler in the occult, presumes to have the authority to teach men and does so from as public a platform as possible, I'd be afraid I was not doing my job. It wasn't Adam that was deceived.

These old canards? GK Chesterton admitted he dabbled in the occult, so is he 'unworthy' to correct you as well? Last I checked, dabbling in the occult didn't damn somebody to hell for all eternity for faith in Jesus covers a multitude of sins or did you miss that part when you decided you were oh so holy and righteous compared to those who dare to disagree with you? Second, you really should educate yourself on what Paul means instead of taking the most literal view possible. Too bad that isn't the right view as Glenn Miller says here:

Finally, the actual nature of the rebuke in vs. 36-38 indicates that the position is that of some Corinthians, and not that of Paul.

This can be seen from the textual flow in the passage:

Vss 26-32: Paul's solutions for orderly worship, with 'universal speaking' allowed.
Vs 33: Concluding argument: God seeks order, and seeks it THIS way in ALL the churches (accepting the NAS rendering of the final clause).
Vss 34-35: Someone ELSE's "solution" for orderly worship, with 'shut the women up' enjoined.
Vss 36-38: Paul's argument: Why do you think you are SO MUCH MORE 'spiritual' than the other churches, to the extent that you can set up a DIFFERENT solution to the problem of orderly worship.


This contrast between 'what the OTHER churches do' and 'what the Corintian church wants to do' is made in the context of orderly worship and universal speaking. In other words, the rebuke makes the most sense IF the text in 34-35 is THEIRS 'alone'--in distinction from the other churches' position.
http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

In other words, you really should stop reading the Bible like a fundy. It was the seed of a women that the savior was brought into the world, not a man. It was a women that first saw the resurrected Jesus, not a man. Sorry, God doesn't damn half of humanity simply for being women, women are as important to God as any man is. There is neither male or female, for we are all one in Christ or did you skip that part when you came up with your smug rant?

[Darfius]

These old canards? GK Chesterton admitted he dabbled in the occult, so is he 'unworthy' to correct you as well? Last I checked, dabbling in the occult didn't damn somebody to hell for all eternity for faith in Jesus covers a multitude of sins or did you miss that part when you decided you were oh so holy and righteous compared to those who dare to disagree with you? Second, you really should educate yourself on what Paul means instead of taking the most literal view possible. Too bad that isn't the right view as Glenn Miller says here:

If I recall correctly, Chesterton experimented with Oujia boards alongside his brother as a youth. That is something different than being in a "death metal" band (which celebrates sin and death). But regardless, I did not say dizzle was "unworthy" of anything, let alone correcting me, which she is perfectly capable of doing should the situation arise. And I certainly did not say that dabbling in the occult "damned one to hell." What I did say is that as a woman, she has no place presuming to have the authority to teach men, particularly as a woman who has shown so little spiritual discernment as to worship sin and death. That her sins are "covered" by Christ does not mean her role as a woman has changed from that of submission.

Finally, the actual nature of the rebuke in vs. 36-38 indicates that the position is that of some Corinthians, and not that of Paul.

This can be seen from the textual flow in the passage:

Vss 26-32: Paul's solutions for orderly worship, with 'universal speaking' allowed.
Vs 33: Concluding argument: God seeks order, and seeks it THIS way in ALL the churches (accepting the NAS rendering of the final clause).
Vss 34-35: Someone ELSE's "solution" for orderly worship, with 'shut the women up' enjoined.
Vss 36-38: Paul's argument: Why do you think you are SO MUCH MORE 'spiritual' than the other churches, to the extent that you can set up a DIFFERENT solution to the problem of orderly worship.


This contrast between 'what the OTHER churches do' and 'what the Corintian church wants to do' is made in the context of orderly worship and universal speaking. In other words, the rebuke makes the most sense IF the text in 34-35 is THEIRS 'alone'--in distinction from the other churches' position.
http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

This argument is either dishonest or simply stupid, as Paul makes it clear these are his sentiments (and therefore Christ's sentiments) by repeating himself, this time in the clear first person:

1 Timothy 2:9-15

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

In other words, you really should stop reading the Bible like a fundy. It was the seed of a women that the savior was brought into the world, not a man. It was a women that first saw the resurrected Jesus, not a man. Sorry, God doesn't damn half of humanity simply for being women, women are as important to God as any man is. There is neither male or female, for we are all one in Christ or did you skip that part when you came up with your smug rant?

I have no idea what you mean by "fundy", but it sounds as if such a person is at least aware of what the Bible says, as you and Miller have shown yourselves not to be. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying that Christ was the "seed of a woman" (Mary descended from Adam as much as she did Eve), as the virgin birth was both foretold and necessary for several reasons, not least of which was that Joseph was of the cursed line of Jeconiah and did not represent the inferiority of men to women (our Savior was a man). Magdalene was indeed the first to see the risen Christ, but the whole scene had the appearance of something unplanned (Christ could not bear to see her weep without hope and so visited her briefly before going to His Father). She was also a prostitute who had to have several demons excorsized out of her, while the apostle John never abandoned his Lord, never denied Him and tarried until He came. I mention those things not to portray men as in any way superior to women intrinsically, as we are all at best unprofitable servants, but as a check to what you appear to be implying. I have always had a romantic view of women, coming very near to an idolatrous (but pure) worship of them, which marrying my wife only tempted me to all the more, but I also have a realistic (that is, Biblical) view of them and of the responsibilities and duties they are given as compared to men.

[Dee Dee Warren]

These old canards? GK Chesterton admitted he dabbled in the occult, so is he 'unworthy' to correct you as well? Last I checked, dabbling in the occult didn't damn somebody to hell for all eternity for faith in Jesus covers a multitude of sins or did you miss that part when you decided you were oh so holy and righteous compared to those who dare to disagree with you? Second, you really should educate yourself on what Paul means instead of taking the most literal view possible. Too bad that isn't the right view as Glenn Miller says here:

Finally, the actual nature of the rebuke in vs. 36-38 indicates that the position is that of some Corinthians, and not that of Paul.

This can be seen from the textual flow in the passage:

Vss 26-32: Paul's solutions for orderly worship, with 'universal speaking' allowed.
Vs 33: Concluding argument: God seeks order, and seeks it THIS way in ALL the churches (accepting the NAS rendering of the final clause).
Vss 34-35: Someone ELSE's "solution" for orderly worship, with 'shut the women up' enjoined.
Vss 36-38: Paul's argument: Why do you think you are SO MUCH MORE 'spiritual' than the other churches, to the extent that you can set up a DIFFERENT solution to the problem of orderly worship.


This contrast between 'what the OTHER churches do' and 'what the Corintian church wants to do' is made in the context of orderly worship and universal speaking. In other words, the rebuke makes the most sense IF the text in 34-35 is THEIRS 'alone'--in distinction from the other churches' position.
http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

In other words, you really should stop reading the Bible like a fundy. It was the seed of a women that the savior was brought into the world, not a man. It was a women that first saw the resurrected Jesus, not a man. Sorry, God doesn't damn half of humanity simply for being women, women are as important to God as any man is. There is neither male or female, for we are all one in Christ or did you skip that part when you came up with your smug rant?

Argh, don't quote the beast. I have him on ignore for a reason.

This is my thread, thus I am calling in my privileges as thread owner. The beast if off topic and unwelcome in this thread. Sean, who is not the same kind of character, and I apologize for unfairly lumping him with darfius earlier... I am taking Sean off of ignore as I don't recall why I put him there... I have read some of his recent posts, and he doesn't seem to be objectionable or a jerk. If we had some confrontation in the past, well I don't remember, so bygones.

Here is what I find really ignorant about people like him. I am owner of this forum, in charge of many aspects. Yes there is another owner who is involved in major decisions, but in the day to day things, I am. Doofius wants the benefit of being here, while still making his comments about females when convenient. If he really believes those things, he would not remain as a member here and willingly put himself under a female who is the owner of this forum, and thus involved in theological decisions every day and teaching the staff on those issues as it comes to forum management.

But you see that would "cost" him something that he enjoys, so he will stay, but in so doing, he condemns himself as a hypocrite.

He can take his rants to the psychotherapy room. Any further posts by his in this thread will be referred to the area moderator for removal.

Now that he has vocalized his position, I ask that he cease from addressing me. It is not appropriate for him to ask me questions, then complain if I answer them anywhere, that I don't even have the right to answer them. For some reason, males on forums who resort to that last offense of the obnoxious, have a habit of forum-stalking females who disagree with them, and we nip that in the bud.

I respect that some males have the position articulated by him. But males with integrity, say it upfront, and do not try to engage the female in debate, as Darfius has repeatedly done, as they believe her even speaking in such a context is wrong. He can't have it both ways.