dr. dino's point of view

[theFijian]

Ba'al and prostitution -- all such things are in evidence in the foundation of the EU

Good grief, thanks for proving my point.

if you haven't looked at the news lately, america is waning, its dollar value has plummeted, its reputation sacked, its integrity gone along with its character and so on

Why oh why is dispensationalism so America-centric? Why oh why is economic and military strength the only acceptable blessing from God? So the US is on the wane is it? The only reason must be that the antichrist himself is behind it!! Please, use scripture instead of the newsreels!

PS - ever heard of China? I hear there economy is purring along nicely.

 

[archaeologist]

Umm...Having watched all 15 of his seminar videos adn topical discussions, and having completed his CSE 101-104 I can tell you...nowhere does he state he believes the Gospel was in the astrological signs....nowhere

now i am going to have to listen to those seminars again because in the versions i got, he said it.

You are not the first to ask that question and a decent definition is awaited.

definition has been given twice, but busterdog's is a good one as well.

Good science is good science, bad science is bad science...you can't just throw anything against the wall and call it "science".

i would suggest you do some reading of the other threads and some of this one to catch up. we have been there and done that.

PS - ever heard of China? I hear there economy is purring along nicely.

i live next door to it, i am way ahead of you. i also live next door to north korea, russia and japan. what is yuour point? i know what is going on in this region.

which reminds me, i am a little distracted right now as the taliban have executed another hostage. that church is about an hour away from where i live and a few years ago i lived in the same area.

none are my former students and i am glad for that.
(though the photos aren't clear)

The only reason must be that the antichrist himself is behind it

never said that.

 

[FranciscanJ]

The "gospel in the stars" is sometimes used by some evangelicals as an apologetic against the Jesus-myther conspiracies. But there are much better apologetics on more solid factual footing than this to debunk the Jesus-mythers. Thus the "gospel in the stars" is not necessary for this. We can do better.

(Besides, it's the sort of explanation that will only cause eyes to roll...the reaction it gets and deserves).

But despite this, I still think telling the gospel through the Zodiac is pretty cool in a creative, artistic sense. It is great fun to explain the gospel through the stars (and maybe help people learn those ancient constellations). But not as some sort of proof.

 

[theFijian]

i live next door to it, i am way ahead of you. i also live next door to north korea, russia and japan. what is yuour point?

My point is you think you know what's going on in your region, and you certainly have no clue what's going on in Europe.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I too live next door to China et al but could never proclaim myself an expert.

 

[busterdog]

The "gospel in the stars" is sometimes used by some evangelicals as an apologetic against the Jesus-myther conspiracies. But there are much better apologetics on more solid factual footing than this to debunk the Jesus-mythers. Thus the "gospel in the stars" is not necessary for this. We can do better.

(Besides, it's the sort of explanation that will only cause eyes to roll...the reaction it gets and deserves).

But despite this, I still think telling the gospel through the Zodiac is pretty cool in a creative, artistic sense. It is great fun to explain the gospel through the stars (and maybe help people learn those ancient constellations). But not as some sort of proof.

Chuck Missler might press the point a little harder than you have. Maybe not. I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense.

 

[Assyrian]

Secular science measures at all does by itself as the highest authority.

Creation scientists believe the Word of God is a higher standard than human science. It measures its science against that Word, and not vice versa.

Does that just apply to modern sciences, or does it include older ones like spherical earth and heliocentrism, because Creationism seem to be operating some real double standards there.

 

[busterdog]

Does that just apply to modern sciences, or does it include older ones like spherical earth and heliocentrism, because Creationism seem to be operating some real double standards there.

As we all know, no YEC on this board accepts the argument that any scripture was written with ignorance of such matters. Nor do we agree that Jesus was wrong about the mustard seed, etc., etc.

Even if we were to apply scientific standards, which we don't, the many examples of rank error in the journal Nature does not invalidate its overall world view.

 

[Assyrian]

As we all know, no YEC on this board accepts the argument that any scripture was written with ignorance of such matters. Nor do we agree that Jesus was wrong about the mustard seed, etc., etc.

Even if we were to apply scientific standards, which we don't, the many examples of rank error in the journal Nature does not invalidate its overall world view.

It is not a question of scriptures being wrong but whether to interpret them literally when the literal interpretation is contradicted by science.

With the shape of the earth and heliocentrism you assume the science is true and that the scriptures must be interpreted figuratively. With the age of the earth and evolution, the assumption is that science is wrong and that the scripture should be interpreted literally. This is inconsistent.

The question of whether the scripture writers were wrong with the statements that literally interpreted speak of a flat earth and geocentrism is a further question we need to ask after we have realised a literal interpretation is untenable. The odd thing is that we have much more basis for saying the author meant the passages to be figurative with the creation account than we have for the flat earth and geocentrist passages.

 

[archaeologist]

when the literal interpretation is contradicted by science.

so youare saying that science trumps the Bible, is not infallible thus cannot be the words of God and subject to the interpretations of the ungodly.

do i have that correct then?

With the age of the earth and evolution, the assumption is that science is wrong and that the scripture should be interpreted literally. This is inconsistent.

no it isn't. it is recognizing what is being written in scripture and how it is being written, it is not being inconsistant but we also do not extrapolate that to passages which are not allegorical.

.

The odd thing is that we have much more basis for saying the author meant the passages to be figurative

no you don't because you have no evidence as to the author's state of mind nor intent. you cannot say 'he meant those passages to be figurative' because you have no idea what he knew or didn't know. you are basing your argument on assumptions and that is just wrong.

we know moses was raised in the egyptian court and was educated via the same means as the egyptian prince's, etc., he came from the top of the ladder not the bottom rung, he had access to all that came into the land, he was not some dumb sheep herder.

you do not consider all the facts before making your determinations, you do what secular science does, omit data so your conclusions come out the way you want them to and not the way they really are.

 

[Deamiter]

no you don't because you have no evidence as to the author's state of mind nor intent. you cannot say 'he meant those passages to be figurative' because you have no idea what he knew or didn't know. you are basing your argument on assumptions and that is just wrong.

Brilliant -- isn't the entire position of creationism FOUNDED on the assumption that you know the author's intent regarding the creation account and since you "know" it was intended literally, you cannot be wrong?

we know moses was raised in the egyptian court and was educated via the same means as the egyptian prince's, etc., he came from the top of the ladder not the bottom rung, he had access to all that came into the land, he was not some dumb sheep herder.

And yet you reject the mere possibility of Moses' use of symbolic ages in genealogies even when Joseph (the only model Egyptian in the Bible) is conspicuously given the age of 120 which to Moses would have been symbolic of a model Egyptian.

 

[archaeologist]

is conspicuously given the age of 120

gen 50:22 'he lived a hundred and ten years and saw the third generation of ephraim's children.'

highly unlikely it was a arbitrary credit to symbolocally present a model egyptian.

isn't the entire position of creationism FOUNDED on the assumption that you know the author's intent regarding the creation account

not at all. we have all the other scripture passages which refer to gen. 1 as a literal event. we are not basing it on assumption but what God's word says.

 

[Deamiter]

gen 50:22 'he lived a hundred and ten years and saw the third generation of ephraim's children.'

highly unlikely it was a arbitrary credit to symbolocally present a model egyptian.

Interestingly enough, you've proven my point -- I misquoted the age (taking the Biblical age limit by accident) when the Egyptians actually used 110 to represent a model Egyptian. And your "highly unlikely" is a bit off -- the chances of all the ages in the genealogies being random is less than one in a billion:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

not at all. we have all the other scripture passages which refer to gen. 1 as a literal event. we are not basing it on assumption but what God's word says.

Never once is it explicitly stated that the references are to a historical, not mythological event. You're making the utterly unsupported assumption that when a story is referenced that story must be historical.

 

[USincognito]

The statue of (the rape of) Europa is also telling.

First of all, we have the bulls that are an enduring image of Ba'al. Now have a look at the babe on the bull. What is she communicating? What makes her such a powerful babe? Well, this big, tough critter wants her in a bad way, because she is such a hotty, who apparently knows how to deliver. Prostitution is the image Europe chose. Why? You can connect the dots from there.

Europa = Europe. Zeus = Bull. Old story = new statue.

Maybe I'm missing the sinster symbolism.

 

[archaeologist]

Interestingly enough, you've proven my point

no i didn't, i corrected your mistake.

And your "highly unlikely" is a bit off -- the chances of all the ages in the genealogies being random is less than one in a billion:

no, you're wrong. i quoted the verse so you would see that it was a literal age and not symbolic:

and saw the third generation of ephraim's children

very hard to do that when you live a short life.

The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system of numbers,

very hard to prove that is what God did.

 

[Deamiter]

very hard to prove that is what God did.

Equally hard to prove that was NOT what the Hebrew authors of scripture did.

Look, I know you intend to make whatever assumptions are necessary to defend your interpretation of individual passages like these. The fact remains that the very cultures Moses was influenced by made heavy use of symbolic numbers for ages. They too would adjust what a historical figure did in order to fit with the symbolic age. And not once in ancient literature is this considered dishonest -- it's simply a widely used literary technique that you assume couldn't have been used by Moses (who you assume wrote the Bible) for the sole reason that your interpretation of certain passages might be wrong.

 

[archaeologist]

The fact remains that the very cultures Moses was influenced by made heavy use of symbolic numbers for ages

BUT God is not like the ancient cultures nor is He influenced by them. we are reminded in isaiah that His ways are not our ways so you cannot assume He followed what ancient cultures did, nor would He allow His writers to do the same.

for the sole reason that your interpretation of certain passages might be wrong

not when it comes to creation. that is very straight forward which leaves no room for alternatives. plus with the other books of the bible pointing to an actual act, done in 6 24 hour days, through God's working and not natural processess, you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Deamiter]

BUT God is not like the ancient cultures nor is He influenced by them. we are reminded in isaiah that His ways are not our ways so you cannot assume He followed what ancient cultures did, nor would He allow His writers to do the same.

Gee, God used many aspects of the Hebrew culture including language, idioms, understanding of the universe etc... to make his spiritual points. Your claim that God wrote the Bible (not just inspired it as claimed in Timothy) is yet ANOTHER utterly unfounded assumption.

not when it comes to creation. that is very straight forward which leaves no room for alternatives. plus with the other books of the bible pointing to an actual act, done in 6 24 hour days, through God's working and not natural processess, you do not have a leg to stand on.

Lol -- you pick an arbitrary interpretation, call your interpretation "straightforward" and offer no supporting evidence (neither Biblical, nor in the form of credible sources). It's great that you can make assumptions and pretend they're truth, but you'll need to go a bit further if you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[archaeologist]

offer no supporting evidence (neither Biblical

read it again:

plus with the other books of the bible pointing to an actual act, done in 6 24 hour days, through God's working and not natural processess

i am not at home, i can't give you a list.

is yet ANOTHER utterly unfounded assumption.

read I or 2 Peter.

 

[busterdog]

It is not a question of scriptures being wrong but whether to interpret them literally when the literal interpretation is contradicted by science.

With the shape of the earth and heliocentrism you assume the science is true and that the scriptures must be interpreted figuratively. With the age of the earth and evolution, the assumption is that science is wrong and that the scripture should be interpreted literally. This is inconsistent.

The question of whether the scripture writers were wrong with the statements that literally interpreted speak of a flat earth and geocentrism is a further question we need to ask after we have realised a literal interpretation is untenable. The odd thing is that we have much more basis for saying the author meant the passages to be figurative with the creation account than we have for the flat earth and geocentrist passages.

Well travelled ground. I was simply suggesting that your geocentrism argument will not move any YEC I know to reach your conclusion, since we don't accept the geocentrism argument.

Our view is that no YEC should be rejecting an interpretation of "sunrise" in favor of a "literal reading" in order to make God's word look fallible. Nor should we reject a literal reading in favor of an "interpretation" simply because human consensus says that Word is fallible..

We have of course argued the many rules of literary construction that make the intent clear. If we are to abandon the rules and simply choose a simpler way to proceed, of course we choose whatever exalts the Word of God, even at the expense of human consensus.