Origins and End Times beliefs -- connected?

[Smidlee]

means men between 15-64 = 458 million
to get 200 million man army would mean to draft 1 out of every 2 men in China between 15 and 64, hardly a possibility.
let alone have plenty to spare.
now why can't you work out rough statistics like this before making something up.

I never claim it was ideal (as noted about resources) but only possible in numbers as you have shown yourself.

Evolutionists believe in huge claims is possible like "the little eyeball that could" story without real numbers or hard evidence to back it up.

 

[mark kennedy]

In other words, does literalism apply at both ends of the Bible?


Belief set A
- Many events of the 20th and 21st centuries suggest that we are now living in the unique period of the end times

We have been living in the end times for 2,000 years, the cross was an end time event.

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1Pe 1:20, 21)

There is a sense in which the final 7 years is some time in the future begining with the covenant of death and culminating with the return "Parusia" (appearing, presence, arrival) of Christ.

- Israel will play a special part in world events at the end of time

Correct, Israel makes the covenant of death beginning the time of Jacobs trouble. In Scripture this has an historical precedence in Israel forming an unholy aliance with Eqypt to protect them from Assyria. I was also tribute paid to Babylon that angered the Lord and provoked his judgment on Judea:

- I believe that there will be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth

That's right a literal 1,000 years.

- I believe that Christians will be removed from earth prior to the great tribulation

Actually, I believe in a mid-trib rapture but it will be a literal, physical transformation.

- A literal antichrist will arise and lead the entire world astray near the end of time

Yes, this is the white horse rider with a crown and a bow who first appears at the opening of the first seal. This maniac is finally cast bodily along with the false prophet into the lake of fire. It is important to realize that there are two beasts (one of the land and one of the sea). The beast from the sea is often refered to as the 'antichrist' but I am inclined to think this is a general referance to the false prophet. He is called, 'the lamb that speaks like a dragon'.

There is more speculation about the actual identity of these two figures then you can shake a stick at. They will have a very brief carrier with the dubious distinction of being the first two cast bodily into the lake of fire.

- Current events in the middle east are very significant for biblical history

That's right, Israel being back in the land is a critical peice of the End time scenerio. Israel preserved their culture, bloodline and religion for 2,000 years and finally returned to their ancient homeland. There has never been another nation like this, it is one of the most important fulfillments of prophecy in the modern world.

- Revelation is a book that speaks of mainly literal events that are yet to happen (or are currently happening)

It is the literal, futuristic predictive prophecy marking the complete fullfillment of the Gospel. It is the last of the 70 7s in Daniel and I hold to a dispensationalist interprutation Hal Lindsay called God's prophetic stop watch. At the end of the 69th week Christ was 'cut off' which means the Messiah was killed. When He was rejected by Israel God's prophetic clock stopped. It starts again at the end of the church age and the last 7 years begin.

Now, I think it is important to tell you that I am not a died in the wool dispensationalist. Theology is not all that important to me with regards to end-times scenerios. There is a strong tie in my mind between a literal Revelations and a literal Genesis. The historicity of Scripture from the beginning to the end is deeply inbedded in my view of the Gospel.

 

[random_guy]

I never claim it was ideal (as noted about resources) but only possible in numbers as you have shown yourself.

Evolutionists believe in huge claims is possible like "the little eyeball that could" story without real numbers or hard evidence to back it up.

Except scientists have many different examples of eye evolution by comparing extant creatures and also use the fossil record to back their claims. They also publish their work and evidence in peer reviewed papers. So, no evolutionists don't make up claims like you just did, they use the scientific method to support their claims.

 

[Smidlee]

Except scientists have many different examples of eye evolution by comparing extant creatures and also use the fossil record to back their claims . They also publish their work and evidence in peer reviewed papers. So, no evolutionists don't make up claims like you just did, they use the scientific method to support their claims.

Yeah ,right.
Replace " the science method" with " their imagination".

 

[Assyrian]

Agreed due to how Revelation is divide : Rev. 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen (chapter 1),

OK

and the things which are (church age chapter 3 & 4) ,

Umm, no. When John wrote, "the things which are" were the seven churches which were in existence in Asia Minor. Interpreting the seven churches as seven eras of the church age puts the chapters among the "things which shall be hereafter" not "the things which are".

and things which shall be hereafter (after the church age chaper 4 and on).

As Young's literal Version puts it: "the things that are about to come after these things" 'These things' are God's dealing with the seven churches John wrote to. The events from chapter 4 on are what was about to happen after that.

The reason people think the church has disappeared in the main body of Rev, is because it is referred to in symbolic language, 'lampstands' or in phrases like 'the saints', 'the martyrs of Jesus', or those who 'hold to the testimony of Jesus'.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yeah ,right.
Replace " the science method" with " their imagination".

i'm curious.

after reading threads in scientific sections of this board and in theological sections, which group do you think exercises the most imagination-scientific type when looking at the world or theological types when discussing the Bible?

which group eventually looks at things the same way-people looking at the world or people looking at the Bible? one group appears to suppress imagination and agree to what is there and the other group appears to continue to imagine what they see there and split into smaller groups each with a specific vision.

guess which is which?


looking at the physical world with physical eyes appears to have a restraint of the imagination that looking at the Bible with spiritual eyes does not.

 

[Smidlee]

Umm, no. When John wrote, "the things which are" were the seven churches which were in existence in Asia Minor.

bingo

Interpreting the seven churches as seven eras of the church age puts the chapters among the "things which shall be hereafter" not "the things which are".

Yet Rev. doesn't actually state there are seven eras yet chapters 3 and 4 dealt with the seven churches (Gentiles churches at that) which most chruches will fall under.

The events from chapter 4 on are what was about to happen after that.

Which so happens not to mention the church (which were gentiles churches was address in chap. 3 and 4) but once again turn to the nation Isreal and the Jewish people.

 

[Mallon]

looking at the physical world with physical eyes appears to have a restraint of the imagination that looking at the Bible with spiritual eyes does not.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rmwilliamsll again.​

I anxiously await an answer to this post. rmwilliamsll hit the nail on the head.

 

[Smidlee]

i'


looking at the physical world with physical eyes appears to have a restraint of the imagination that looking at the Bible with spiritual eyes does not.

Yet it's the evolutionist who came up the with " The little eyeball that could" story.

 

[Mallon]

Wasn't quite the profound reply I was hoping for.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yet it's the evolutionist who came up the with " The little eyeball that could" story.

the extraordinary uniformity of the scientific community across cultures, languages, religions etc can be contrasted with the extraordinary division in the church in spite of clear Biblical commands to be one body, in spite of very uniform culture, language, socio-economic class, race etc etc. the church divides over very similiar ideas.

there is essential 1 science in the world and several thousand churches. this alone is evidence of extraordinary restraint of imagination in science and individual assent to the principles of the whole group, religion is almost the opposite with the level of agreement down to a handful of people.

using this example.

how many different ways does science propose the formation of the human eye?

how many ways does Christianity propose the origin of Adam and his eyeball?

which group exercises the most imagination is forming a "just so story", which group has reference to a common body of external information that overrides each individual's imagination? which group has no external constraints of the human imagination and therefore has not intersubjectivity to share a common vision?

 

[Smidlee]

the extraordinary uniformity of the scientific community across cultures, languages, religions etc can be contrasted with the extraordinary division in the church in spite of clear Biblical commands to be one body, in spite of very uniform culture, language, socio-economic class, race etc etc. the church divides over very similiar ideas.

which could mean scientists are too dogmatic with their imagination.

how many different ways does science propose the formation of the human eye?

science propose none. science is extremely overrated when it comes to origins. Scientists are trying to use science to prove something that's very likely to be way beyond science.

 

[Assyrian]

Yet Rev. doesn't actually state there are seven eras yet chapters 3 and 4 dealt with the seven churches (Gentiles churches at that) which most chruches will fall under.

Just as individual Christian find they are Marys or Marthas Peters or Thomases, but the account of the gospels are about believers in the 1st century AD no matter how well we can apply them. in the same way, the letters in Revelation are addressed to 1st century churches in Asia Minor dealing with evens and people in those churches at that time. The rest of Revelation is what happens after that. Or at least that is what the book says.

Which so happens not to mention the church (which were gentiles churches was address in chap. 3 and 4) but once again turn to the nation Isreal and the Jewish people.

and a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages Rev 7:9

 

[Mallon]

Scientists are trying to use science to prove something that's very likely to be way beyond science.

Like what, Smidlee?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the extraordinary uniformity of the scientific community across cultures, languages, religions etc can be contrasted with the extraordinary division in the church in spite of clear Biblical commands to be one body, in spite of very uniform culture, language, socio-economic class, race etc etc. the church divides over very similiar ideas.


which could mean scientists are too dogmatic with their imagination.


curious response. science shows lots of imagination on the leading edge of the unknown, but as ideas are compared and contrasted, evidence weighed and balanced, over time a consensus emerges that really is extraordinary in it's unity.

nothing like modern science is evident in history for it's broad scale agreement and intersubjectivity. to minimize this or to minimize the church's equally extrarordinary division is to miss the major point that science has found a domain and a method that really yields consensus. the church ought to sit up and take notice and ask serious questions about why and how this differs from the church's epistemology.

it is curious that you would label scientific consensus --- dogma which is a word currently most commonly used to describe the church's doctrine.

DOGMA (Gr. Sbypa, from b6aeiv, to seem; literally " that which seems, sc.
good or true or useful " to any one) , a
term which has passed through many senses both
general and technical, and is now chiefly used in
theology. In
Greek constitutional
history the decision of—" that which seemed good to "—an
assembly was called a bl ypa (i.e.
decree), and throughout its history the word has generally implied a decision, or
body of decisions or opinions, officially adopted and regarded by those who make it as possessing authority. As a technical term in theology,

from: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/DIO_DRO/DOGMA_Gr_Sbypa_from_b6aeiv_to_s.html

and it's use here is a backhanded way to declare that science is like religion or is religious in nature.

if science was religion it would break up into little tiny pieces like religion does. it has not, but rather expresses a unity that shames the modern church.

 

[Smidlee]

[/color]
Just as individual Christian find they are Marys or Marthas Peters or Thomases, but the account of the gospels are about believers in the 1st century AD no matter how well we can apply them. in the same way, the letters in Revelation are addressed to 1st century churches in Asia Minor dealing with evens and people in those churches at that time. The rest of Revelation is what happens after that. Or at least that is what the book says.

The Apostles wasn't told how long the church age was so of course "thing that are" was written to the 1st century churches. Yet the doesn't leave out these chapters was dealing with the church as a whole especially since seven represent the number of completeness.

and a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages Rev 7:9

and I'll continue the verse ".....stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands." Of course there will be gentiles saved in the trib (by the 144,000 Jewish preachers) but it still doesn't mention the church. The are hints of the apostate church being around during the trib.

 

[Smidlee]

it is curious that you would label scientific consensus --- dogma which is a word currently most commonly used to describe the church's doctrine.

I agree with what Michael Crichton stated :
" There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." He then gives how bad of a track record consensus has.
So yes scientific consensus it nothing more than dogma.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the church age
saved in the trib


i am amazed at how easily people use club talk, a private language thinking in obvious that their audience understands it the same way they do, when in fact, statistically less than 1/3 of the modern American church* is dispensationalist, that the roots of the movement are not yet 200 years old.

these words are as much nonsense as:
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves


are you even aware of how divisive dispensational type of theological analysis is?

assuming the correctness of this type of language shows how insular and divided the church really is.

i can use very specific terms from science anywhere in the world and those words are common to millions of people.

i remember the title of one of the first theology books i ever read:
baptism the waters that divide. and often think how that could just as well be:
baptism the words that divide
or
"here is my body" the words that divide.


i am aware that i share a common theological vocabulary with a very small part of the greater visible church and at the same time share a technical scientific vocabulary with people from every country on earth.

sad condition when the church needs to take lessons on unity from the world, rather than teaching it.


notes:
*i do not know the statistic for the whole world, but only for the America church, i'd be curious if anyone knows or can find it for the 1.2 billion christians (how many are premillennialists or how many are dispensationalists)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree with what Michael Crichton stated :
" There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." He then gives how bad of a track record consensus has.
So yes scientific consensus it nothing more than dogma.


nonsense.

compare two major ideas from each system.

science: F=ma
Christian theology: this is my body.


you tell me where the consensus lies and how many different ways the science can be interpreted and how many ways the theology is.

furthermore.

compare what happens
when things change, when ideas change.

you show me how the church reacts by building a new consensus with reference to a common reality and an agreed upon method for understanding how to produce evidence and reaching a common unity versus how science shatters into little tiny competing groups all certain that they are correct.

and even more importantly:

you show me how F=ma is taught differently all around the world, in each political domain and in each language group and how "this is my body" is taught the same everywhere in the Christian church of the same city.

then i will apologize for the "nonsense" remark.
and switch to describing scientific theory as dogma and personal taste and Christian theology as justified true belief universal to all people.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thank you for the quote

from:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.
...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
...
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
...
I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.

That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.
...
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?
...
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.
...
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

if you read the whole speech it is a extended argue against the politicization of science and the attitude that accompanys the policy making wing using the word consensus. it does not support your point of using the quotation at all but is close to being the opposite.

he has great respect for the unity of science in the absence of a forced consensus based on political or policy goals.

it is a worthwhile read, thank you for pointing it out*...



*i went to give you rep points for it, but you turned off the reputation function....
o'well consider this a big thank you then....*grin*