Bible prophecy debate

[Complexity]

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.

Well, that's part of your problem. That's not coffee.

 

[joobz]

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

Did you read Tim's posts?
I think you'll find his arguments are rooted in rationality and (as such) amendable to criticism. Can the same be said for an apologist?

 

[154]

Well, that's part of your problem. That's not coffee.

You're probably right about that. Certainly about the MH, but the Folger's Columbian doesn't even cut it with you? What do you recommend?

<And forgive the brief thread diversion, this is important. >

 

[Complexity]

You're probably right about that. Certainly about the MH, but the Folger's Columbian doesn't even cut it with you? What do you recommend?

<And forgive the brief thread diversion, this is important. >

I currently like Starbuck's Cafe Verona. Buy it whole bean and grind it just before brewing. That's what I'm drinking now. I also like Caribou's French Roast. Am into dark roasts these days.

I went to Seattle a year ago for a job interview. Was put up in a hotel that had a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse as its hotel restaurant )). Had breakfast there a few times. The house coffee was the best I'd ever had. Asked a waiter about it and he said that it was custom blended for Ruth's Chris by Starbucks. He also said it was similar to Starbuck's Cafe Verona. Been drinking mostly Cafe Verona since. Close to the restaurant blend, but not quite the same. Wonderful, nonetheless.

 

[Robo Sapien]

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.

I brew a mixture of equal parts Eight-o-Clock Columbian and Pilon espresso in a normal coffee pot. It will make you grow hair in unusual places, dangerously close to reversing evolution. Not recommended for creationists.

 

[Complexity]

I brew a mixture of equal parts Eight-o-Clock Columbian and Pilon espresso in a normal coffee pot. It will make you grow hair in unusual places, dangerously close to reversing evolution. Not recommended for creationists.

Perhaps this is where they got the mistaken impression that hair will grow on your palms if you indulge in daily meditation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Tim,

How did you set up this gig?

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim,

How did you set up this gig?

Actually, Ross contacted Michael Shermer asking to debate him on a combination of Bible prophecy and Ross' assertion that Genesis 1, along with other verses of the Bible, show a (divine) awareness of Big Bang cosmology and that the sequence of creation events in Genesis 1, again divinely inspired, fit the sequence of events in the geological and fossil records. Michael initially proposed that both he and I debate Ross, but Ross said he only wanted to debate one person, and Michael decided to let me handle it.

I initially thought we would be going over prophecies of the fall of Babylon, Nineveh, Tyre and Egypt. However. Hugh Ross wanted to debate the Genesis 1 thing and the Book of Daniel.

Our debate on Daniel turned out to be almost exclusively about the date Daniel was written. He claims that the Aramaic used in Daniel was not the type used in the second century BCE.

I pointed out that the bad history, such as Babylon falling to "Darius the Mede", the use of the name Nebuchadnezzar as a opposed to Nebuchadrezzar, the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's astrologers as his "Chaldeans" all point to a later date of composition. We can pinpoint that date because the contemptible person of Daniel 11 is obviously the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes. The description of his actions - conquering Egypt, being forced to give up that conquest by the Romans, and his plundering and desecration of the Temple - are correct up to and including his attack on the Temple in 167 BCE. However, his predicted death taking place somewhere west of Jerusalem is wrong. He died campaigning against the Parthians in Armenia in 164 BCE. Thus, Daniel had to have been written after he plundered the Temple in 167, but before his death in 164.

Ross responded that Darius the Mede was just another name for Cyrus and that he doubted that Daniel 11 necessarily referred to Antiochus Epiphanes.

All in all, it was a pretty good exchange. However, I don't think any minds were changed. I'll mention more as it occurs to me.

 

[154]

All in all, it was a pretty good exchange.

That's probably the best we could hope for then..

However, I don't think any minds were changed. I'll mention more as it occurs to me.

It seems that's the way it usually goes and that's the way we generally are.

 

[154]

Bible prophecy.

The best, quite simply, is a sincere, open and honest examination of the long list of specifics of almost every detail of The Christ.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Actually, Ross contacted Michael Shermer asking to debate him on a combination of Bible prophecy and Ross' assertion that Genesis 1, along with other verses of the Bible, show a (divine) awareness of Big Bang cosmology and that the sequence of creation events in Genesis 1, again divinely inspired, fit the sequence of events in the geological and fossil records.

Ross is an old earther, right? Does he squeeze a gap into verse 2, or are his yoms long time spans?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ross responded that Darius the Mede was just another name for Cyrus and that he doubted that Daniel 11 necessarily referred to Antiochus Epiphanes.

Except that the Book of Daniel says that Daniel did well under both Darius the Mede and Cyrus of Persia, which would be rather unimpressive if they were the same guy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Bible prophecy.

The best, quite simply, is a sincere, open and honest examination of the long list of specifics of almost every detail of The Christ.

Perhaps an example?

(Especially if any of those details occurred in Daniel?)

 

[154]

Ross is an old earther, right? Does he squeeze a gap into verse 2, or are his yoms long time spans?

Time is a relative physical property.

Right?

Different observers from different locations can report vastly different numbers and both be correct

and make this point of contention entirely academic and unnecessary

but proceed...

 

[154]

Perhaps an example?

(Especially if any of those details occurred in Daniel?)

Perhaps when the thread lulls sufficiently

and there'll be no complaints for the hijacked revival?

 

[154]

I currently like Starbuck's Cafe Verona. Buy it whole bean and grind it just before brewing. That's what I'm drinking now. I also like Caribou's French Roast. Am into dark roasts these days.

I went to Seattle a year ago for a job interview. Was put up in a hotel that had a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse as its hotel restaurant )). Had breakfast there a few times. The house coffee was the best I'd ever had. Asked a waiter about it and he said that it was custom blended for Ruth's Chris by Starbucks. He also said it was similar to Starbuck's Cafe Verona. Been drinking mostly Cafe Verona since. Close to the restaurant blend, but not quite the same. Wonderful, nonetheless.

Ruth's Chris... never had... only fantasized...

And by the way, I will try that SCV because you said so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps when the thread lulls sufficiently

and there'll be no complaints for the hijacked revival?

Well, I won't complain, and I think it's in the spirit of the OP, sort of carrying on our own version of that debate here in the forum. How other people react, well, I can't really say.

 

[joobz]

Actually, Ross contacted Michael Shermer asking to debate him on a combination of Bible prophecy and Ross' assertion that Genesis 1, along with other verses of the Bible, show a (divine) awareness of Big Bang cosmology and that the sequence of creation events in Genesis 1, again divinely inspired, fit the sequence of events in the geological and fossil records. Michael initially proposed that both he and I debate Ross, but Ross said he only wanted to debate one person, and Michael decided to let me handle it.

I initially thought we would be going over prophecies of the fall of Babylon, Nineveh, Tyre and Egypt. However. Hugh Ross wanted to debate the Genesis 1 thing and the Book of Daniel.

Our debate on Daniel turned out to be almost exclusively about the date Daniel was written. He claims that the Aramaic used in Daniel was not the type used in the second century BCE.

I pointed out that the bad history, such as Babylon falling to "Darius the Mede", the use of the name Nebuchadnezzar as a opposed to Nebuchadrezzar, the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's astrologers as his "Chaldeans" all point to a later date of composition. We can pinpoint that date because the contemptible person of Daniel 11 is obviously the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes. The description of his actions - conquering Egypt, being forced to give up that conquest by the Romans, and his plundering and desecration of the Temple - are correct up to and including his attack on the Temple in 167 BCE. However, his predicted death taking place somewhere west of Jerusalem is wrong. He died campaigning against the Parthians in Armenia in 164 BCE. Thus, Daniel had to have been written after he plundered the Temple in 167, but before his death in 164.

Ross responded that Darius the Mede was just another name for Cyrus and that he doubted that Daniel 11 necessarily referred to Antiochus Epiphanes.

All in all, it was a pretty good exchange. However, I don't think any minds were changed. I'll mention more as it occurs to me.

What were his reasons for doubting Antiochus Epiphanes? was this a substantiated doubt?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Time is a relative physical property.

Right?

Different observers from different locations can report vastly different numbers and both be correct

and make this point of contention entirely academic and unnecessary

I asked which of the two (mis)interpretations Hugh Ross adheres to. (If he adheres to one of them at all, that is.)

Wether time is relative, green, cubic, or even spicy has zip to do with it.

 

[Kopji]

Did they take up an offering?