#89940 - 07/31/06 04:03 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 126
Loc: NSW Australia
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Not sure that's actually a response, Shane.  Does the laughter connote the idea that the laws of science *don't* predict our everyday experiences more often and more precisely than miracles? That is, are you claiming that miracles that break the laws of science occur more often than just the normal functioning of those laws?
By the way, Clifford is wrong because he claims a single miracle would call into question the whole of the scientific paradigm: but the scientific paradigm effectively is disconnected from the miraculous... that is, a miracle is by definition an event inaccessible to scientific study (yeah, I know, the residue is able to be studied).
Ah well...
To "a miracle is by definition an event inaccessible to scientific study" I would add "yet". I think a miracle is only so becuase we have not developed to a point that we understand what God understands. A miracle is not so to God because He has the knowledge, the technology, to do things which we very simple and undeveloped humans do not have. Healing the blind without surgury or medicine is miracle to us not, but in a million years it many not be. I am not suggesting that we will last that long or that Christ will not return. Just that God has unlimited resources and years of experience that we do not have. A miracle is not a miracle to God, just His work.
Evolution is not a problem to God just as Creation is not a problem to Him. How He created this universe is for us to work out. And how long will that take? We will destroy ourselves long before we can answer that. The only people who can live in peace over these issues are those who leave them for God. We need to concentrate on loving our neighbor (God's law; Ecc 12:13 This is the end of the matter; all hath been heard: fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.)
_________________________
Being Christian is really simple. Look after your family and your mates, feel sorry for the idiots and leave the rest up to God. She'll be right mate!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89941 - 07/31/06 05:40 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1294
Loc: NSW Australia
|
Quote:
I think a miracle is only so becuase we have not developed to a point that we understand what God understands.
So in a milion years we will be able to raise dead people to life.
And perhaps it would therefore be not a huge step until we are able to create life.
Miracles will be no more! We will be like God!
Perhaps we will not need God at all, then?
Graeme
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89942 - 07/31/06 05:57 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Pastor John]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7122
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I have moved away from teaching for SDA institutions for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I don't feel I can support a number of doctrines in their most usual form in my personal beliefs. While I worked for the church, however, I was very careful not to actively teach anything different from the church's beliefs, as part of my professionalism as a teacher. I think it's appropriate for someone in a similar situation to mine to make the decision that it's better for them to seek to work in other fields, but I don't believe it's appropriate or healthy for others to 'purge' church workers on the basis of their beliefs: that way lies a lot of heartbreak, abuse (i.e. when someone purges someone because they dislike them, not because of their beliefs) and hypocrisy (when people are forced to hide what they believe).
I reject even more strongly calls for people like myself to leave the Seventh-day Adventist church. I believe no church on this earth can be perfect, by definition, and that churches more or less fully embody Biblical beliefs and doctrines. I believe the SDA church is the one that *most* fully embodies Biblical doctrines, and for that reason leaving and going to another church would be rejecting some biblical light. But I don't believe that slavish toeing of the 'party line' is what God requires of believers - rather, he requires us to be enthusiastic, energetic and committed seekers of truth.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89943 - 08/01/06 03:47 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Registered: 07/01/02
Posts: 1389
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
But I don't believe that slavish toeing of the 'party line' is what God requires of believers - rather, he requires us to be enthusiastic, energetic and committed seekers of truth.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89944 - 08/02/06 02:52 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 10425
Loc: CA
|
Quote:
bevin said:
Quote:
I believe that our only model, when it comes to determining our doctrines and faith, has to be the Bible.
Where do you think Abraham, Daniel, or Paul got their ideas from? None of them had the Bible.
I find it hard to believe that you meant to say Daniel and Paul did not have the Bible. While it is true that Abraham did not have any of the Bible, yet there can be no doubt whatsoever that Daniel had access to most of what is in our Hebrew Scriptures, and Paul had all of what we have in our Old Testament and then some. He studied the LXX, which also contained the books known today as the Apocrypha. Abraham had something even better; he had God Himself as his personal preacher, teacher & guide. Since He inspired the Holy Scriptures, God means for us to go by his written word. That is why He gave them to us, so that we will live in accordance with them. It is dangerous to go contrary by His written word. See 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 4:1-4; 2:15; 2 Peter 3: 15,16; Galatians 1:6-9; John 17;17; Acts 17:11; Isaiah 8:20; 1 Timothy 4.
It would be foolish indeed not to base our lives on God's written word just because there was a time when some people had to get along without it.
Quote:
The NT writers quote from non-Biblical sources.
Yes, they did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The fact that they quote a few lines of non-Biblical sources, however, is no argument that we should not base our doctrines and faith on the Bible. It is one thing to read various non-Biblical books; it is another thing to base one's doctrine and faith on them. I am simply arguing that we should base our doctrine and faith on the Bible. I am not saying the Bible is the only thing we should read.
Quote:
Jesus pointed us to the world around us as well.
Again, that does not mean we are to base our doctrine and faith on what we observe in the world around us. We are, rather, to let the Bible interpret for us the spiritual significance of what we observe in the world around us, as Jesus plainly teaches in Matthew 16:3. This is also taught in other parts of the Bible: in almost the whole of Proverbs; Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9; Revelation 3: 14-18; and chapters 12 through 19.
Quote:
The only way to determine the meaning of the Bible is to examine the world around us - how do you think the selection of the books to include in the Bible was made?
No, the way we determine the meaning of the Bible is by means of the illumination of the same Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets who wrote it. The Bible is its own best interpreter. It is best to let scripture explain scripture. How, for instance, does observation of the world around us help us to understand the meaning John 1:1, John 3:16, or of Exodus 21:22?
The selection of the books to be included in our Bible did not come about because men sat down and observed the world around them and then came up with a list of books. That is an oversimplification. The selection processes was a long and complex one, extending over a period of time and involved many reasons for acceptance or rejection of the various books. It was not a committee that made the decision but rather the entire world church. First of all, they were the books for which Christians everywhere were willing sacrifice their very lives.
Naturally, of course, there are instances where observation of the world around us helps us to understand certain things in the Bible, such as where the Island of Patmos is or the location of Jerusalem, etc. But knowing such things are not really essential to understanding the fundamental message of the Bible, the glorious good news of God's love for each of us and what He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ, to give eternal life to those who put their faith in Him.
Quote:
science has shown a very poor power of predicting the future;
That is because you misunderstand the concept. You think I am talking about predicting the path of societies, cultures, etc. I am not - these things are far too complex for us to be able to predict them from scientific equations.
I am talking about predicting the path of a thrown ball, the result of mixing two chemicals, what you will find when you dig up a section of the earth, what you will find when you examine the DNA of a man and a chimpanzee.
Predicting the path of a thrown ball and what the result is of mixing two chemicals, is hardly my idea of "predicting the future." If that is your idea of predicting the future, you are welcome to it. My idea is being able to predict the rise and fall of nations thousands of years in advance, and being able to predict such exciting things as the place where the Messiah would be born and the very year in which He was to be anointed and then killed so we can have eternal life. Now THAT is predicting the future. Knowing where a ball is going to go is as nothing in comparison with it, wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
I'd like to know which miracle science has ever accepted.
I'd like you to point to a single instance of a real miracle that is susceptible to scientific evaluation. That is to say, is either repeatable or was recorded using instruments capable of detecting and recording detailed physical measurements.
All the attempts to do so - for instance by studying the miracles on the Benny Hinn show - have turned up fraud, fraud, fraud, and misunderstanding.
Most miracles you read about that don't have obvious opportunities for fraud - medical or cultural examples such as someone recovering from a serious illness - usually hinge around events that are unlikely but possible within the framework of the normal scientific models. When you include the possibility of biased selection and biased reporting, they are well within that framework.
At camp meeting one year, someone asked the audience what they would do if there was a report of demon possession/activity going on just down the road. Some said they would pray, I said I would grab my video camera and go there to have a look and to film!
There has NEVER been a case of a well-documented demon-possession doing something outside the realm of our standard scientific models. I would love to be the first person to capture such on tape - but experience says the whole thing would evaporate into a bland case of fraud and misunderstanding./Bevin
It sounds as if you might be interested in the more sensationalistic aspects of demon-possession, in which case you would not be a good person to have around. Like the men in Acts 19:11-20, you might get more than you bargained for. I would suggest to you that all the cases you mentioned would evaporate into a case of fraud is that the only people who would invite you to video-tape these things are fakes. My own experience in this subject is that men who are seriously involved in it would not even consider being either recorded or filmed. They simply have no interesed in it, nor do they care if you believe in it.
Study the books to be found at the following link. They were written in order to show people the seriousness of the spiritual war in which we are all engaged, whether we know it or not, and how to stay free. These books are about real people and real events. I know because the author, a well-respected Adventist pastor, school administrator and author, is my father. Some of the things reported in these books happened at Loma Linda University Hospital and were witnessed by numerous doctors and nurses.
http://www.tsibooks.com/scripts/search.p...mp;x=18&y=8
_________________________
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89945 - 08/05/06 02:49 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
The Bible was selected out of a wide range of available books approximately 400AD. We have no evidence of the individual books existing prior to the Babylonian Captivity at approximately 500BC. That means that all of God's people before 500 BC basically relied on oral histories, and from 500BC to 400AD choose for themselves which books to read and accept. The "I get all my ideas solely from my understanding of the Bible" concept is a reaction to people (specifically the Roman Catholics) writing books to support their organisation - it is a Protestant mechanism to counter this weapon. A better mechanism would have been to actually point out what the RC's were doing - but that is a poor sound bite and doesn't appeal to the ignorant masses. Quote:
Predicting the path of a thrown ball and what the result is of mixing two chemicals, is hardly my idea of "predicting the future."
Since it has been used to do everything from sending spacecraft to Saturn to building atomic bombs and computers, physics it is worthy of more respect.
I suggest you study the history of science and find out exactly how ignorant your ancestors were.
For instance: What is the distance to the sun? When was it first known +/- 20%? How was it measured?
Quote:
My idea is being able to predict the rise and fall of nations thousands of years in advance
It has NEVER been done. The nearest you might find is the prophecy in Daniel of the rise of Rome - and depending on how you date Daniel that is at most a few hundred years, and Rome was not identified as the country involved.
Quote:
and being able to predict such exciting things as the place where the Messiah would be born and the very year in which He was to be anointed and then killed so we can have eternal life. Now THAT is predicting the future. Knowing where a ball is going to go is as nothing in comparison with it, wouldn't you agree?
Since we don't actually know which year he was born, anointed, or killed it is hard to be sure the prophecy is correct, wouldn't you agree?
However the 70 lots of 7 years prophecy of Daniel is indeed one of the most compelling - it just is not as solid as you seem to believe.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89946 - 08/05/06 10:38 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Registered: 03/24/00
Posts: 953
Loc: Lancaster,MA,USA
|
But didn't Jesus quote and read from the Old Testament when he was on this earth. From my reading the New Testament there are places were it says that Jesus went to the temple as was his custom and read from the bible. Also one time when he went back to his home town and on the Sabbath he read from Isaiah, I think, a prophecy that was about him. So wouldn't that lead you to believe that he was reading from the Bible of his day. Which we would call the Old Testament today.
Just a thought.
pkrause
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89947 - 08/05/06 11:27 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: carolb]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
So wouldn't that lead you to believe that he was reading from the Bible of his day. Which we would call the Old Testament today.
The OT as we know it today was selected from a range of books that were in circulation in Jesus time.
Jesus was simply reading from one of the many books that were regarded as acceptable to read in the synagogue then.
http://netministries.org/Bbasics/BBOOrig.htm
In 170 A.D., Melito of Sardis declared the collections of Jewish scriptures found in the Jerusalem church to be the official OT canon for Asia Minor. This also became the OT canon for the Egyptian church. But later, in 348, Cyril of Jerusalem, declared the OT canon to additionally include the book of Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah. The African churches at the synods of 393 (Hippo) and 397 (Carthage), had an enlarged collection of books which include what we today call the 'deutero-canonical' books of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant churches rejected this canon however accepting only the Scriptures of Judaism.
However, like I said, there is no evidence of any of this literature predating the Babylonian captivity.
The Bible And The Bible Only is a VERY late cry in Christianity - one that is closer to the Reformation than it is to Jesus. People who use this argument, as John316 does, to justify NOT using science to help us understand God are using a argument that could not be made in Jesus time - because there was no accepted standardized list of books the OT then, and the NT wasn't written!
Apparently early Christians were allowed to think, but SDA aren't - they are required to follow some imposed understanding of some specific set of books.
What is not clear is where this imposed understanding is supposed to come from. Since it can only come 'from the Bible and the Bible only', obviously it can't come from EGW or the Adventist Review or the Adventist Theological Society.
And since the Bible authors themselves felt free to reinterpret and to misquote earlier authors...
For instance: the OT does NOT say that Jesus' mother will be a virgin - merely that she will be a young woman.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89948 - 08/06/06 02:26 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 10425
Loc: CA
|
Quote:
bevin said:
The Bible was selected out of a wide range of available books approximately 400AD. We have no evidence of the individual books existing prior to the Babylonian Captivity at approximately 500BC.
That means that all of God's people before 500 BC basically relied on oral histories, and from 500BC to 400AD choose for themselves which books to read and accept.
You are describing one theory of how the Bible came down to us. That is OK if you want to do that, but at least you should acknowledge it as a theory. I believe that Moses wrote most of the first five books of Moses about 1400 BC and that prophets such as Daniel and Isaiah wrote the books named after them. Apparently you have chosen to believe various modern, higher critical theories about the text, and of course that is your choice. You must realize, however, that just because there is no physical evidence of texts existing prior to 500 BCE it doesn't necessarily follow there is no good evidence of their existence prior to that time. There were many wrong theories about the texts floating around before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, when it was proven they are much older than some critics believed.
Remember, there are some texts that were written in pre-exilic Hebrew, and besides, we have Jesus' testimony on who wrote the books. Or are we also going to question here Jesus' existence or his reliability or the reliability of the Gospels?
Quote:
The "I get all my ideas solely from my understanding of the Bible" concept is a reaction to people (specifically the Roman Catholics) writing books to support their organisation - it is a Protestant mechanism to counter this weapon. A better mechanism would have been to actually point out what the RC's were doing - but that is a poor sound bite and doesn't appeal to the ignorant masses.
I take it that you are not a Seventh-day Adventist. Perhaps you are not even a Protestant. In any case, I believe in the Bible and the Bible alone just as the Reformers and Ellen White taught. You might want to read or restudy the book, Great Controversy, especially Chapter 37, "The Scriptures A Safeguard." I don't know of a single sentence in that chapter that doesn't apply in a particular way at this time of such great spiritual and moral confusion. If people ever needed to stick to the Bible as their guide, we need to do it even more nowadays when every wind of doctrine is blowing every which way.
Quote:
Predicting the path of a thrown ball and what the result is of mixing two chemicals, is hardly my idea of "predicting the future."
Since it has been used to do everything from sending spacecraft to Saturn to building atomic bombs and computers, physics it is worthy of more respect.
I suggest you study the history of science and find out exactly how ignorant your ancestors were.
For instance: What is the distance to the sun? When was it first known +/- 20%? How was it measured?
I have taken college classes in science, and I do still enjoy reading about it, but I have to admit you obviously know a lot more than I do about it. The point I would like to make is that we need to always remember that when Christ returns, all of your so-called science and all that it has accomplished won't be worth a plug nickle. The only thing that will matter will be our faith in Christ and the characters that we have allowed -- or not allowed--God's grace to develop in us. Nothing else will matter.
Quote:
My idea is being able to predict the rise and fall of nations thousands of years in advance
Quote:
It has NEVER been done. The nearest you might find is the prophecy in Daniel of the rise of Rome - and depending on how you date Daniel that is at most a few hundred years, and Rome was not identified as the country involved.
Daniel predicted the rise of the European nations after the collapse of Rome and predicted also that those nations would still be individual nations when Christ returned. If you include the rise and fall of Rome and then the rise of the western European nations, that is more than 2 thousand years. Please restudy the second chapter of Daniel.
Quote:
and being able to predict such exciting things as the place where the Messiah would be born and the very year in which He was to be anointed and then killed so we can have eternal life. Now THAT is predicting the future. Knowing where a ball is going to go is as nothing in comparison with it, wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Since we don't actually know which year he was born, anointed, or killed it is hard to be sure the prophecy is correct, wouldn't you agree?
We know that Christ was born about 4 BC, and we know that he was baptized about 27 AD, and we know that he died about 31 AD. We also know that Christ knew when he would be baptized and killed. Luke 3 tells us when these events occurred. Because of the prophecies, people who were studying them knew ahead of time that it was time for the Messiah to be born.
So, no, I wouldn't agree at all that it is hard to be sure the prophecy is correct. The 70 weeks propehcy of Daniel 9, beginning its fulfilment in 458/7 and ending in 34 AD, is very plain and came true without question.
Quote:
However the 70 lots of 7 years prophecy of Daniel is indeed one of the most compelling - it just is not as solid as you seem to believe.
/Bevin
I believe it is very solid, and that is after 30+ years of studying it. But of course there is nothing under the sun that some people can't raise doubts about, and that is particularly true of the Bible-- for what ought to be obvious reasons.
I've enjoyed reading a little book titled, Prophecy Speaks, witten by Earle Albert Rowell. That book looks at the very solid prophecy of Ezekiel 26, concerning the city of Tyre, which happens to be back in the news even as we write. I love reading Isaiah 40 to 48, especially 45 where the prophet named Cyrus and described his work long before he was even born. We worship a great God who not only knows the end from the beginning but proved it in a most amazing book we call the Bible.
_________________________
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
56 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, bygjymbo, CoAspen, darlene, Daryl Fawcett, Denise, dgrimm60, Doug, Dr. Lorraine Day, Ellen, fccool, Gladussee, Grace3, Gregory Matthews, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, LynnDel, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Morning Glory, Nan, Neil D, Norman, olger, pkrause, Redwood, Robert, Suzanne Sutton, Taylor, TeensMom, truthseeker007, Vera, 15 invisible),
454
Guests and
165
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2033
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
