Bible prophecy debate

[joobz]

I have a feeling Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, Josh Mcdowell, and Dr. Hugh Ross do not agree with the consensus of biblical scholars, whoever they are.

Your "feeling" and their opinions are not evidence.

 

[hgc]

Your "feeling" and their opinions are not evidence.

Yes, but DOC's assessment, though he labels is a feeling, is probably correct. Those dudes will not go for any academic bible "scholarship" mumbo-jumbo that takes a serious look at authorship by actual humans and all the potential error that ensues.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I have a feeling Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, Josh Mcdowell, and Dr. Hugh Ross do not agree with the consensus of biblical scholars, whoever they are.

The funny thing is, normally this would be an argument against the credibility of the people in question.

 

[Lothian]

I have a feeling Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, Josh Mcdowell, and Dr. Hugh Ross do not agree with the consensus of biblical scholars, whoever they are.

Whoever they are? I thought you knew who they are, you quote them all the time,

Geisler is a philosopher
Muncater is an engineer
Mcdowell runs his own ministry
Ross is an astronomer

I doubt that the academic world of biblical study is rocked by the fact that some amateurs disagree with the consensus.

 

[TimCallahan]

The reasons for separating Isaiah 1 - 39 from what follows (Deutero-Isaiah) include, among others, marked differences in style, marked differences in tone (Isaiah 1 - 39 is harsh and condemning, while what follows is comforting and full of hope) and thee use of the present, rather than the future, tense in references to Cyrus.

 

[joobz]

Good Luck, Tim.

But I can't help but feel that this much of this debate will rest on what the observer wants to believe.

this is best illustrated in the "too vague to tell" category of prophecies. To the true believer, the prophecy is clear and not vague at all. Even defining something as "vague" can be a vague issue.

For instance, IF I was to say sample B is hotter than sample A. This is a vague statement as we do not know how much hotter B is than A. However, there is a qualitative difference being described that can not be denied, that B has a temperature that is greater than A.

And even if we change the statement to Sample B is 10 degrees hotter than A, there is still a vagueness in this comparison. how heterogeneous is the temperature profiles within the samples? Are you comparing the maximum difference between the samples or the average temperature.

In the end, one can start to see that either side can keep shifting the requirements for what would be considered too vague or not too vague. This makes the debate very difficult.


I would assume the only way to address this point would be to do a comparison level of detail vs. vagueness and find out what level of disbelief Hugh Ross would have to prophecies made by Silvia brown. IF you can get a bench mark, you can then use this as a point of reference in evaluating the biblical prophecies' vagueness.

 

[DOC]

Whoever they are? I thought you knew who they are, you quote them all the time,

Geisler is a philosopher
Muncater is an engineer
Mcdowell runs his own ministry
Ross is an astronomer

I doubt that the academic world of biblical study is rocked by the fact that some amateurs disagree with the consensus.

Are you saying someone like Norman Geisler who has written over 60 books on apologetics is an amateur. Read his 4 volume Sytematic Theology if you think he is a amateur. And if he is a amateur he is an amateur who has spoken or debated in 25 countries and all 50 states.

 

[Lothian]

Are you saying someone like Norman Geisler who has written over 60 books on apologetics is an amateur. Read his 4 volume Sytematic Theology if you think he is a amateur. And if he is a amateur he is an amateur who has spoken or debated in 25 countries and all 50 states.

He is not an amateur on apologetics but in respect of biblical study he is not taken seriously by academics specialising in the subject.

 

[DOC]

Whoever they are? I thought you knew who they are, you quote them all the time,

Geisler is a philosopher
Muncater is an engineer
Mcdowell runs his own ministry
Ross is an astronomer

I doubt that the academic world of biblical study is rocked by the fact that some amateurs disagree with the consensus.

When I said "whoever they are" I was speaking of whoever the so-called biblical scholars (making up the alleged consensus) were since they weren't named.

And I would think rational skeptics would value the opinions of people in the logical fields of philosophy, engineering, and astronomy.

 

[Mirrorglass]

When I said "whoever they are" I was speaking of whoever the so-called biblical scholars (making up the alleged consensus) were since they weren't named.

And I would think rational skeptics would value the opinions of people in the logical fields of philosophy, engineering, and astronomy.

Their opinions on philosophy, engineering and astronomy, we do value. Opinions on biblical matters, economics, medicine or leprechauns, not so much.

 

[Lothian]

And I would think rational skeptics would value the opinions of people in the logical fields of philosophy, engineering, and astronomy.

Rational skeptics would value their opinions in their respective fields of philosophy, engineering, and astronomy. Their opinions in respect of dress design, souffle making and biblical study less so.

 

[joobz]

When I said "whoever they are" I was speaking of whoever the so-called biblical scholars (making up the alleged consensus) were since they weren't named.

And I would think rational skeptics would value the opinions of people in the logical fields of philosophy, engineering, and astronomy.

DOC, this thread is about Tim Callahan's Debate with Hugh Ross. Not about your lack of understanding regarding who is or isn't an expert on a topic.

Lothian gave you a quote from a book written by Dr. Simon J. De Vries. You only needed to do a quick google search to see that Dr. De Vries was a professor at Methodist Theological school in Ohio. So, you have a book written by a biblical scholar stating what biblical scholars beleive. That holds a little more credibility than your other sources. But you are free to challenge it. Do some research and find out if there are any legitimate biblical scholars who challenge this view.


On the sad note, my quick google fu, I found that Dr. De Vries recently passed away (April 4th).

 

[Simon39759]

Are you saying someone like Norman Geisler who has written over 60 books on apologetics is an amateur. Read his 4 volume Sytematic Theology if you think he is a amateur. And if he is a amateur he is an amateur who has spoken or debated in 25 countries and all 50 states.

That makes him a professional liar, not so much of a professional Biblical scholar, which was the point.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well, today is the day. In about two hours I'll be arriving at the venue to set for the debate. I won't be posting on any thread until sometime aft 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time. I'll let everyone know how things went when I get back.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Good luck

 

[154]

Well, today is the day. In about two hours I'll be arriving at the venue to set for the debate. I won't be posting on any thread until sometime aft 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time. I'll let everyone know how things went when I get back.

Are you open to learning and new ideas or do you know all?

 

[Complexity]

Are you open to learning and new ideas or do you know all?

I'm quite open to learning and to new things - I learn quite a bit each day, some of which quite surprises me.

But you weren't really asking about that, were you?

You are suggesting that if we aren't interested in the insane xian fundy garbage that you believe in, we're close minded and haters of truth.

Fact is, friend, that most of us have spent far more time looking at bibble- and xian-related stuff than it deserves and have concluded that it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now, you don't like that conclusion. Tough. The stuff that lights up your life is worthless to the rest of us and utterly unworthy of further consideration.

That won't stop you, of course.

We'll muddle on without you.

ETA: I know a bit and suspect a bit more. Only know a drop in the ocean. Yet that is enough to lead me to disregard your beliefs as utter tripe.

 

[154]

Morning plexy. That reminds me. Time for a coffee.

 

[Complexity]

Morning plexy. That reminds me. Time for a coffee.

I think you need more than coffee.

 

[154]

Come on now, sweetums, be nice for a change.
Folger's 100% Columbian is my regular. Maxwell House French Roast is only worth the half price.