Thank you for being so helpful.
- Kay and Librarian like this
Jump to content
Posted by Marynsh on 30 April 2016 - 02:57 PM
Thank you for being so helpful.
Posted by Mark Taunton on 23 February 2015 - 01:23 AM
PoiterM, a brief note regarding your OP...
The exact same Hebrew form for "the nephilim" that occurs in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 occurs also in other places in the OT. Anyone who claims that the Genesis & Numbers uses both refer to a specific group of people in Noah's time needs to explain those other uses also. In particular, two instances from the same era as Numbers 13, i.,e. Joshua's lifetime or just after, are pertinent:
In summary, from these instances it is clear that the word "nephilim" does not refer to any specific ethnic group. It rather refers to people who are "fallen", in some sense. So the claims some have made about Num 13 / Gen 6, regarding actual genetic descent, are unfounded and wrong.
Hoping that's helpful...
Posted by Gazing@Stars on 23 February 2013 - 05:39 AM
Posted by Richie on 26 June 2012 - 04:18 PM
Posted by Mark Taunton on 18 June 2012 - 04:37 PM
Posted by Matt Smith on 11 May 2012 - 04:02 PM
Pursuant to that point, perhaps you can answer to a prior post in which I asked another poster to list what Christian groups or denominations in the world today, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, or as claimed "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead." (perhaps as first century Gnostics did).
Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.
Why don't you try answering this time rather than changing the subject. What billion Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.
If Jesus is God it means he did not die (God cannot die) and if he did not die, he did not rise from the dead. So my answer remains the same: Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.
So you make an excuse for falsely accusing that Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."
You accuse brethren on the basis of your apparent belief that God granted you the sole franchise on the truth of what the bible itself describes as a "mystery".
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Acts 2:42 - ...they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Posted by Acomtha on 14 February 2012 - 03:31 AM
Posted by cgaviria on 10 October 2016 - 04:11 PM
Posted by concernedfather2 on 03 August 2016 - 03:45 PM
Posted by Kay on 29 May 2016 - 02:36 AM
Posted by Librarian on 18 May 2016 - 11:47 AM
Posted by Kay on 27 April 2016 - 12:05 PM
Be back to you in the next day or so, will email the ecclesial member.
Posted by Chris-M on 31 October 2015 - 10:11 AM
Thank you very much this
Posted by Chris-M on 30 October 2015 - 07:20 AM
What does the bible say about a person that once believed, then had a period of years (about 2 to 3) where as far as they could tell, they think they didn't believe any more, but then - returned to the faith? Is a person forever condemned because they left the faith, or can that person come back to God's saving grace? I don't really believe in 'once saved always saved' because Paul said something about running the race, that it was an ongoing fight. But I'm not sure.
I questioned my faith for years and at one point I said to myself I was probably agnostic. I 'think' at one point I might even said I was probably atheist (though I'm really not very sure about this). For the longest time my faith was hanging by the thinnest of threads, but I think deep down I still believed, albeit weakly. I can't ever remember 'feeling' like an atheist (whatever that feels like), and I do remember that I still said silent prayers in my head - but I think this might have been more to do with a 'just in case it's all true' attitude. I would never blaspheme either. It is true to say at one point though, that I honestly did question my faith and did not really know what I believed any more.
Posted by Chris-M on 25 October 2015 - 04:29 PM
Thanks for posting this
I found it to be very informative if a little difficult to understand. The style of writing is I think, quite reminiscent of its day and has a certain elegance about it. But to the modern reader (me), I found it tricky to 'take in'.
Still, I believe the main thrust of the text was to give evidence that the immortal soul is not biblical.
Posted by pete on 29 August 2015 - 01:20 PM
More grease to your elbow. Thank you for sharing all these!
Posted by cindyb6 on 13 May 2015 - 01:24 AM
One of the problems that we have with the attitude displayed here, is the demand for people to accept the peer-reviewed "consensus" view by scientists on evolutionary biology. This demand is couched in many ways, but the most confronting version is when any dissenter or questioner is asked what qualifications they have to be able to go against those with degrees in these sciences. And, even if you can supply qualifications (which most of us can't), then they are either not in the right sciences or the dissenter has not published any peer-reviewed papers. This makes it extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the issues and often leaves a person feeling crushed and beaten, rather than reasoning together as brethren.
A comment I recently read, seems relevant in this context:
"How can we distinguish the good papers from the poor? This can be very difficult without actually attempting to reproduce their findings. Short of that, apply the same critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism to scientific papers that you do for political, historical or religious claims. 21st century science can often be heavily influenced by poor experimental practices, unproven computational models, political agendas, competition for funding, and scientism (atheism dressed up as science). When going over a paper ask questions like, how large was the data set? What sort of statistical analysis was performed? Are there other papers that independently support or disconfirm these findings? What is not being discussed? One thing for sure, don’t accept something simply because ‘hundreds’ or even ‘thousands’ of papers say so, especially if Darwinian evolution is the topic. Practice critical thinking with the question in the back of your mind, 'Is this one of those papers that will be retracted?'."
We may not have the relevant man-made degrees but, as students of the Word, we need to be able to discuss these aspects of the Word of God, without being bullied into submission.
Posted by leviathan on 12 May 2015 - 04:08 PM
I am one of many who has tried to discuss this topic with Jonathan in a civil manner only to find the dialogue following the same old script as you have described above.
Jonathan's views place him well outside the BASF and his conduct and behaviour is highly divisive.
Together with Ken Gilmore, Jonathan runs a number of pages attacking our publications.
I am one of many who feel the time has come to mark those who cause division. Jonathan's behaviour needs to be highlighted.
Yes is is negative and unpleasant, but this is simply a reaction to a pattern of behaviour that has gone unchecked for too long and has led many astray who tragically mimic many of the techniques they learn from the likes of Jonathan.
This needs to be called out.
Posted by TrevorL on 12 May 2015 - 04:52 AM
My assessment of this thread is that it is in bad taste, not only in content but also the fact that it is anonymous. My suggestion is that this thread should be deleted.
Posted by Ivastic on 06 March 2015 - 12:31 AM
Nathan, I have given various reasons why I think that some of what is now being preached is wrong, I am entitled to do so.
No one has ever said you're not entitled to speak out about what you believe is wrong, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you
You came here of your own accord, you also said you didn't come back because you didn't try hard enough (more or less a sleight - that is how it appeared)
Yes I did, I came here to discuss it with Peter because he said he wanted to talk about this subject (local flood and EC) on both BDF and BEREA. Previously I hadn't been back because a) I tried a while back and couldn't get on, and b) there never seemed to be a whole lot of discussion here and c) I am an admin at BEREA and don't have the time to focus on 2 forums (I don't even post on BTDF anymore)
- though this time you must have - because we also had the "evolutionary Christadelphian Police" viewing the OP, though of course linked on facebook ...
There is no such thing as the EC police, this is just inflammatory language.
and we have had Evangelion reappearing, IP's from Taiwan ... even Iceland viewing the board, but not this particular topic.
The reason that people like Ev and Fort were viewing this thread, is because Peter (who started this thread) was involved in a discussion on FB with fort and said he would come to both BDF and BEREA to discuss it further. I have no idea who your visitor from Iceland is, I don't know anyone from Iceland.
ACC (the name has changed again?) - rather than frequent sites like skepticalscience, expand your horizons
I am not a scientist, and so I trust the scholarly consensus on subjects like Evolution, Climate Change/Global Warming, Vaccinations, and the fact that things like homeopathy is garbage, I trust this consensus in the same way I trust that if I get Cancer, Chemo and Radio therapy are my best options, and when I broke my leg last year, I trusted my surgeon to repair it.
and from the ABC too and left leaning places
I am not sure how this is at all relevant to this discussion.
that is not the intention, but sometimes friends can lead one astray in belief
Perhaps you should take your own advice here.
Also, the fact is, the OP relates to what Jonathan Burke has written and promoting
And the scholarly consensus agrees with him, since, he is not promoting his own views, but that of biblical scholarship.
but to suit the purpose of promoting Theistic Evolution to the brotherhood
Accepting the flood is local, has nothing to do with promoting EC, and that can be seen by the fact that some of our pioneers accepted a local flood (even if they believed it was anthropologically global, they still believed it was physically local) - none of them accepted evolution.
so the Word of God again appears inaccurate, is called into question. Such brings us again to this:
No one would accuse the pioneers of saying the bible was inaccurate, even if they accepted a local flood
Actually, some of it has been copied and sent to others ... so there you go!
Proof? You and Matt keep claiming you have all this material copied from "secret" meetings and "private" discussions and yet, you produce none of it.
we had someone who believed in YEC here, and then the "evolutionary Christadelphian Police" descended ... and drove the person interested in our belief away, and in the interim at BEREA running dialogue mocking the one here because they believed in YEC ... the thread at BEREA was moved out of public view apparently - the damage, well, I am certain they at BEREA would place the blame elsewhere, that he had the gall to believe in YEC - they always do in any issue, though that said, I will give David Burke credit, he tried to reason with those commenting at BEREA.
I don't know anything about this, it was obviously before my time at BEREA, so I can't comment on it.
BEREA IS top heavy in the public arena promoting evolution to the brotherhood
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. While it is true that some of the admin / mod team at BEREA accept EC, not all of us do. Also, the only two sites I know of actively 'promoting' evolution are ECACP and COD - neither are run by BEREA.
number of the comments are dated, science has moved on, or with other opinion
You know what science hasn't moved on from - The consensus that Universal Common Descent explains the diversity of life on earth
and even when asked who they were, I don't think there was immediate response and openess
The main reviewers are those with their names on the front of the journal, but there is a larger group on BEREA who review all the content for D&C (I am one of those people for example)
but then one on the review panel, some of the writings they have given consent to, or the nod, the writings were very questionable and in some cases wrong.
The material of D & C is weighted towards TE/EC
Lets test this theory:
So in 4 editions, over 51 total articles and only 4 about science, yes I can see how this is heavily weighted to TE/EC
Now, who else uses the name "duplicitous liar"
Anyone who has a good grasp of the english language? I am not really sure what you are trying to prove here. I was calling out bedson for what he is.
there are those who believe in TE/EC who have been less than honest to their brethren, and then supporting them not realising that they have been lied to.
Really? I would like proof of that.
Dave Burke usually asks for 6 examples
I don't care what Dave burke does, I was asking for one - I note you haven't provided one.
they are from former Christadelphians who have stated that it was all there for them at BEREA, to assist in the journey from believing to unbelief
I know of one regular poster on bedsons blog who was an active member of BEREA, and I can assure you his reason for leaving had nothing to do with our material. I would also like proof of this claim, (also, note that Bedson has multiple "Sock Puppet" accounts on his blog so you can't actually trust that everyone who is posting there is a real person)
but when called out, that there are other victims, this is denied or cast aside
We aren't denying it could have happened, we are saying we have seen no proof of it happening, and whenever we ask, we don't get a single straight answer.