Evil Sentient Duck

Well seeing that you haven’t answered much in this thread:
Sven has patiently asked you to return here to defend your assertions regarding the ToE

Why should I bother discussing evolution and abiogensesis with you, Bright Boy?
Especially since you’re getting handed your ass in your hat in that thread, and the fact that I am still trying to learn about this stuff from people who actually know something about it.

Jim Larmore

Well gee thanks Doctor

I wasn't aware of those multiple posts or the PM because I left the forum in disgust over the quality of the dialog I was having to engage in here. I've been posting on the ARN forum where its much more friendly. I returned to defend the book of Daniel a few weeks ago and have lurked and posted here on occasion for the last few weeks.

So whats the accusation Doc? Spell it out I can stand it I have broad shoulders. I didn't know we had a posting quota to live by in order to be considered a credible poster.
The problem with the Ev/Cr board is I feel like I'm being swamped and buffeted from all sides by very hostile opponents who use every opportunity to impune or deliver sarcastic comments over trivial things like spelling sic sic sic ( remember doc?),and then theres the problem with posting counter evidence that is hailed as proof or refutation that is merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. I know this is an adversarial platform I've stepped out onto when I come here but a lot of times I've left this forum feeling very disrespected and invalidated in an improper way.
Then I'd suggest you all show some courtesy as well then.

Those challenges were never answered nor were my claims refuted. I just got tired of beating a dead horse when comes to the correct interpretation of the actual evidence concerning fossils, the sedimentary stratas and macro-evolution.

The truth of the matter doc, rudeness seems to be a relative thing on this forum. As long as it flows in my direction its not considered rude at all but if I return in kind then its just a crying shame and rude.

I've lurked over on the Ev/Cr board but I haven't posted because its the same old group of self appointed know it alls over there who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them on the behind.

BTW, this is probably not the proper thread to be discussing this. Sorry Mods.

Amaleq13

I agree. In fact, it probably belongs in a Private Message exchange rather than any of the fora.

Jim Larmore

Sorry, I thought it should have been apparent that the information was comming from the website I prefaced the paragraphs with. I'll quote them from now on. Also sorry for the side line discussion about old business on the Ev/Cr board, these guys came hunting me not vice versa.

Jim Larmore

Actually its pretty straight foward in the dictionary: evil is defined as a morally objectionable behavior , morally reprehensible, sinful, wicked or offensive, pernicious, a quality of being morally wrong. Thats webster, now mine is the normal or natural nature of fallen man without the power of God in his life. We are all born into sin in this world and take on this natural tendence to sin because its our inheritance from our first parents. Theres nothing we can do about it by ourself, but God can transform our lives with the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.
I know evil exists everytime I see a report on T.V. of a mass murderer or a child rapist. I can see evil in some people faces as they attempt to stare or intimidate. I used to be in law enforcement for several years when I was younger and I can say I have witnessed evil many times in the reprehensible behavior of some criminals who mutilate young children or kill for no reason at all. Sin is the transgression of the law 1John 3:4, you cannot sin without breaking one of God's laws, evil is the conveyance thru which sin propogates itself. Evil is present in every lued and criminal act of violence thats without a justifiable cause.
Theres archeological evidence of his existence. The Bible is the main source of my statement concerning his character, its good enough for me.
Yes there is several writings of John the Revelator being a very pious man. Eusubius ( ms ) and another named Polycarp made statements about John and his writings . I'll have to look this up to find the specific statement concerning him. Theres some concerning Peter too.

Jim Larmore

Well maybe because you made a comment about it having some validity pertaining to the physical sciences. I asked you to prove your assertion and show me an example of it happening spontaneously like the theory claims it did. I'm still waiting.
Don't be making claims you can't back up. My ass is still very much intact and will probably remain that way. Unassssisted abiogenesis is a pipe dream at the very best and an out right lie at the worst. Life didn't come from non-life.

spin

Abrasive is a term used by the person who persistently avoids issues. Assuming is based on your apparent avoidance mechanism which are relatively well-known. You saw a person who has experienced your avoidance mechanism on C&E note that mechanism in operation. Your defensive stance has also been noted which your speed to go off on tangents rather than deal with issues. Your rhetoric about "offensive" is merely a further example.

Now tell me this, if

1. the time between when the temple was polluted (9:27) and the end time is half a week of years, ie three and a half years,
   
2. the time between when the little horn attacks the temple (7:25) and the end time is three and a half "times", usually taken as years,
   
   are we not dealing with the same events? especially when
   
   
3. the little horn in ch 8 stopped temple sacrifice and polluted the temple, with the prediction of the restoration of the temple in 2300 evenings and mornings, ie 1150 days, ie three and a quarter years, and
   
4. the king of the north (easily identifiable because of 11:30, Antiochus IV being forced out of Egypt) stopped temple sacrifice and polluted the temple (11:31b) with the end coming in 1290 days, about three and a half years, with a stop press extension to 1335 days.

Are these four situations not all dealing with one and the same context seen from different perspectives (with a little slippage for the end)? Is that context not the central events of the Hellenistic Crisis, when Antiochus IV tried to eradicate the Jewish religion, banning its practice and persecuting those who persisted, and tried to enforce the worship of the Athenian Zeus, Baal Shamim ("desolate" in Hebrew is very similar, shamem, while the abomination usually referred to an idol), in the form of his own statue to be worshipped every Greek month (hence the reference in 7:25b regarding changing the seasons and the laws)?

Would you like to give your learned opinion on the confluence of the four accounts as I have very briefly outlined them (and I'm happy to supply much more detail if you'd like it)?

[Note of course that I am referring only to the second part of Daniel, as the first part was written earlier, which the struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies was not yet decided, ie the two legs of the statue in ch 2.

And note also that the king who made the decree to restore the temple was Cyrus (Ezr 1:2-4) -- not Artaxerxes I --, the anointed prince in Dan 9:25 being Jeshua ben Jozedeq.]


spin

Evil Sentient Duck

Don't play this friggin High road, Jim... Answer the questions that te guys over at the Evo board have for you, first. like I said, I have no more interest in discussing ToE with a creationist tool. I am still learning, but don't mistake me for a fool or you will severely piss me off. Not a good tactic for a person who should be concerned for the well being of my eternal soul.


I'm getting this advice from you? :rolling:

Answer Sven and Peez, please….

Toto

mod warning - stay on the topic of Daniel 9:24-27. And keep the personal stuff out of this forum.

unknown4

Wow, many replies. My main question is about what apparently Josephus and possibly the Talmud refer to concerning the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple, about it matching the final week of Daniel 9:24-27, the part which says "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease". Supposedly, and I'm not entirely sure about it, Josephus and/or the Talmud relate this to Vespasian? or Titus? supposedly stopping the sacrifices around 3 and 1/2 years before the Temple was destroyed. Now, in Judaism, from my knowledge, they see Daniel 9:24-27 as prophecy fulfilled also, but see two annointed ones, and use different starting and ending dates.

So, is what Josephus and/or the Talmud supposedly says merely Jewish apologetics trying to fit the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple around 70 CE to Daniel 9? Did the stopping of the sacrifices around 3 and 1/2 years before the Temple was destroyed really happen, similar to what happened by Antiochus when he "destroyed the sanctuary" by removing objects/erecting a statue or whatever is claimed?