Amaleq13

q not g

Please use the quote function as it makes posts more easily read. Using square brackets [], place {quote} before and {/quote} after what you want in a quote box. Attribute the quote by placing {quote=<member name>} at the start instead.

Do you understand that your question has no connection to my advice you quote? A review of your post history would not likely cause spin to change his conclusion.

If you have read scholarly commentaries on Daniel, simply refute his conclusion by citing support for your claims.

I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out why you should have and how you could have easily avoided looking foolish in suggesting that discussing the Hebrew Scripture in Hebrew would be lost on spin.

I did but I offer my apology if it wasn't clear that "all around" referred to everyone in the discussion.

Sauron

Well, no. He wasn't.

You see, part of being a skeptic is the ability to get the skeptical arguments right. But McDowell shows time and time again in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that he doesn't know what the skeptic arguments are. He puts forth so-called skeptic arguments that are so badly assembled that no skeptic would ever claim they accurately reflected their viewpoint. It's easy to defeat a strawman of your opponent's actual position.

So either:

a. McDowell was a pretty miserable skeptic in the first place, and misunderstood the objections to the bible literalist viewpoint - which means that he rejected skepticism and accepted Christianity for totally mistaken reasons; or

b. McDowell is lying / stretching the truth in his claim to have ever been a skeptic in the first place. It's unfortunately rather common for fundamentalists and evangelicals to make claims about being atheists or skeptics before their conversion - when the reality is that they were only vaguely aware of the concept of atheism, or what it means to really examine biblical claims skeptically.

Furthermore, McDowell didn't write Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He farmed the sections out to other people who wrote the various sub-parts, and then he claims to have acted as the editor to bring it all together.

Also incorrect. Chapter 11 of ETDAV, the chapter on (alleged) fulfilled prophecies, is full of contradictions, historical mistakes, and flat-out dishonesty. In fact, it is so riddled with errors that McDowell left that chapter out of ETDAV Vol. 1, in the most recent printing.

Actually, you owe it to yourself to put afdave on 'ignore' and do your own thinking for yourself.

Translation: afdave will be cutting and pasting the claims of other people on his blog, without worrying about whether they're correct or not.

Nothing much changes for you, does it, Dave?

There are precisely zero which have been fulfilled as written.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sky4it: Why do you suppose that God inspired Bible writers to make predictions that were not easy for everyone to understand?

sky4it

Amaleq:

Yeah, everytime I try the quote function it brings all the quotes with me but I will get it down next time. Thanks.

As far as Daniel goes, I do not have the time to write a three page paper on Daniel. I have studied EW Bullinger and some other stuff. There are wide views on Daniel still to this day. All I was doing Amaleq is stating my view on the topic to the original poster.

I will go and delete the comment on the item about preclude so that when Mr. Big (oops it slipped) come back we can discuss that then.

As far as the Hebrew goes I have never had a Hebrew class, I do however possess 15 credits of Biblical Greek. I thank you for trying to help me not look foolish. Do not concern yourself because I am quit sure, that I know more than enough to hold my ground. I am not bragging but I have studied much bible.

I noticed that you thought my post history was lacking. Try and understand that I gave Charles Darwin a few black eyes and somepeople did not like it. I know that is not about you but since you reviewed my post history I was hoping that you would think more of me than that.

I will try and behave, but I am what I am; so if I am out of order a nice tap on the shoulder helps. Thank you so much. :wave:

sky4it

Ameleq see above post

Johnny Skeptic: That's a good question Johnny and I dont have a static answer for you. In fact, in the book of Revelation 5:5 it says no man was able to open the book with the seven seals. Yet we find many people saying this means that and on and on. I always remember that verse when they are speaking because it was shut up only for Jesus Christ to know. Now not all of Revelation was shut up but the parts with the seven seals where in fact shut up for only Jesus to open. So I think part of the answer is man wants to know the future NOW, and sometimes that is not revealed.

If your question is about old testament prophets foretelling Jesus, it becomes for me a different issue. Here at this website reciting EXPERIENCE will get you no where. I reconcile the text's both because they are strong (in fact I think they are can't miss overboard), and the experience I have had as a spirit filled Christian. For me that's enough.

I believe that Christianity, is a lifestyle, a commitment. It is also a honored commitment by God who meets our faith with results.

There is however one really hard part of your question. That is the part that says it is not easy to understand. The bible does say some people can wrest with scripture which is not a good thing. In fact, the same passage in II Peter 3:16 says " in which are some things hard to be understood." So it does take time. On the other side of the equation, I believe there are some people who dont want it for one reason: They simply don't like what it says about how they should live their lives. Yet, a third component is where the bible says( II Corinth 4:4)" the god of this world has blinded the minds of them who believe not....." How so? The Wicked one projects a life of no fun, white robe, can't have a drink its boring type of sentiment on an individual.

You asked a really broad question. I dont think I can answer it all except by saying you have to answer the rest for yourself. Seek and you shall find. I think that is the ticket for yourself.

Anyway brilliant question, and I probably said way too much.

spin

I gather you wanted a response, sky4it.
Fundies don't like being called fundies.

No content whatsoever.

Predictably sad, especially "King James literally did not want to get one word wrong". And you don't like being called a fundy. Look at a decent modern translation such as the RSV, NRSV, or JPS and find that they won't agree with your dogma. Have a look at the Greek and find the word for "pierce" with your 15 Greek credits. Ask someone to tell you what the Hebrew word for "pierce" in the verse is. Or just bite the bullet and check our archives on the verse.

I guess you think this is a meaningful response.

Umm, the works are Jewish. Jews don't agree with you. Your dogma makes you an accomplice to cultural theft.

Think before you write and check your sources so you understand the problem.

I didn't. I simply made a relatively objective evaluation of your dogma reheats. If you want to communicate with people, you should try to give your own responses. People will tend to appreciate well-thought-out statements better than blood rushes.

I commend you for your intention, not your result.

When you give dogma, I guess you don't see the reinterpretation.

Actually, I tried to call you out on your post's basic lack of substance. You've admitted this yourself.

You need to know something about it to criticize it. Shakespeare is also literature and I criticize that as well. You are trying to protect something that doesn't need protecting.

I wouldn't have said that.

I think you have frequently demonstrated your relationship to logic.

You plainly have not read any scholarly commentary on Daniel.

More of that logic.

No.


spin

sky4it

spin:

usaid: I gather you wanted a response, sky4it.

No, I really didn't. I wrote a post to email. You seemed to think it necessary to deride it. Since you did, I responded back to you. I would have rather that you did not respond the second time.

usaid: Fundies don't like being called fundies.

Actually no one has ever called me that before. You are the first. I don't like people calling me things, when they don't know me. Is this unusual for you to accept that?

usaid: Have a look at the Greek and find the word for "pierce" with your 15 Greek credits.

The topic was on biblical prophecy. The reference about old testament signature statements predictive of the birth of Christ. The old testament was not signatured in Greek. Thus it would do no good to look up the Greek word. This is your error.

usaid: I guess you think this is a meaningful response.

In fact the part in Revelation is a meaningful response. So yes you are correct that part was meaningful.

usaid: I didn't. I simply made a relatively objective evaluation of your dogma reheats. If you want to communicate with people, you should try to give your own responses. People will tend to appreciate well-thought-out statements better than blood rushes.

Slow down big fella. The note on my post was to the original poster. I did not comment on your statements, except to add my views on the book of Daniel. I never aksed for your op on the matter. You say above, that I should "give my own responses." What exactly LED YOU TO BELIEVE SOMEONE OTHER THAN MYSELF TYPED THE RESPONSE?" Could you please explain that Dr. Logic? So and now to add to the rest I have blood rushes and eveything I said was dogma? Where do they churn know it all Dr. Logics out like you anyway? I thought you intelligent ones were suppose to be so immune to hyperventilating dialoque.

So to make up the new list: What we got here is another right wing, biblically, unconvincing,dogmatic, unscholoarly, illogical,re-heated, re-interpreter who gets blood rushes? Anthing else you want to add to the list that you called me?

I suppose the good news is this: But at least not a person who stereotypes others whose views are not there own and had a penchant for name calling in order to elevate his own opinion and APPEARS TO THINK HE IS PSYCHIC because he thought someone other than myself gave the respones that I did? (this is what you said)

Nice to meet you too Dr. Logic. I didnt know logical people had to spin there material by dog whipping arguments,they didnt like.

spin

Retreat? I reiterated for your benefit.

Unable to justify yourself I see.

Trying to talk to the topic, you said: "Psalm 22:16-18 describes the piercing of Christ's hands and feet." And you tried to defend the piercing idea thus:

In fact the text in King James says "pierced my hands and my feet" King James is widely regarded as the most prolific translation of all time. King James literally did not want to get one word wrong. Out in my garage I have some Hebrew texts, but nevermind, I wouldnt bother with you on that anyway.

Now you wanna hide. That's ok.

You misread me. I said "I guess you think this is a meaningful response." Note, "I guess you think..." I didn't say that it was meaningful. You are merely bolstering your own opinion, for what that is worth.

I'm not in a hurry. Do you think someone hadn't noticed that your "post was to the original poster"? You just dropped a load of dogma and ran. Normally people give reasoned responses. You should appreciate that.

Stop projecting.

Is this some sort of attempt to construct a martyrdom for yourself?

Content is not your strong point. One first gets that idea from your first post in this thread. You've certainly attempted to reinforce the idea.

Classic retreats such as yours go this way:

1. someone says something not particularly well-thought-out;
2. another questions them on their content;
3. they then start backtracking and changing the subject by abandoning the little content they started with;
4. finally they plead that their comments weren't on topic, so one should drop the whole thing.

When you say something other people can and will criticize what you say. You should learn to live with it.

Before someone says things that have been given a lot of consideration on the forum, it's best to check the archives first, so that one finds out where those things are at on the forum and doesn't repeat things that are well-understood by the forum.


spin

sky4it

SPIN:

usaid: You just dropped a load of dogma and ran. Normally people give reasoned responses.

Look, Spin, I didnt run anywhere. I think you and I are having a problem communicating. Notice u said " Normally people". Since you think, I am a "fundy" and fundy's apparently in your view dont have reasoned responses, and don't act "normal."

So we do not seem to communicate well and much of it has to do with your rhetorical stereotyping as far as I am concerned.

NOW LISTEN HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY.

The orginal person who started the thread has not came back.
There are several reasons, that I do not want to communciate with you anymore about this topic. They are the following:

1) Even if you could spin the word "pierce", their is nothing you will have to offer that will change my views on Christianity. Since I sent the message to someone else. We are now way off target.

2) I used to get into arguments when I was 18,19 20 years of age disputing doctrines with other Christians. In fact, one group believed that their were 4 thieves crucified with Christ based on one or two Greek words. My point is SIMPLY THIS. WORD GREEK/HEBREW ARGUMENTS ARE A THING THAT I DONT ENJOY AND IT TAKES A LOT OF RESEARCH AND I DONT HAVE THE TIME.
I am telling you this, because it is not that I am backtracking, I just simply do not have the interest in arguing words with you.

3) In addition, since your view scripture is literature. My view of scripture is that it is inspired of God. Thus, I believe that there is no way I could ever change your mind. NEITHER DO I WANT TO TRY.

BECAUSE:
4) When it comes to preaching the Gospel, I only preach 2 1/2 things; and I only do that with someone who believes in God.

SO IN A REAL POLITE WAY AND FOR THE REASONS ABOVE I AM ASKING THAT YOU NOT RESPOND TO ME ON THIS ISSUE AGAIN.

Perhaps here at this website we will talk on another thread about a different topic sometime in the future.

Having said that REGARDS AND BEST WISHES MAYBE WE WILL VISIT AGAIN ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

-Jay-

sky4it -

What it seems that spin is advising is that instead of merely lobbing a few very familiar aplologetic dogma-grenades into the thread, you should take the time to reason through a coherent response yourself. In other words, think for yourself. It'll probably hurt the first few times, but it'll get better in time. Spin wasn't suggesting that you have someone ghost-writing for you, or that you're psychic or any other such nonsense - he was suggesting that you use your brain.

Your posts to this thread so far have not introduced anything that hasn't been hashed over dozens of times in the past. When you take that approach, you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself on the receiving end of some harsh responses.

regards,

NinJay