The End of the World - A Biblical Perspective

[Moose]

However, read ollydolly's post. That's the real information.

I don't think so! That isn't real information, that's a real opinion. I see what the poster means.........but they're sadly mistaken in my opinion. That person needs to do a little more studying........like others have said a thousand times, gain knowledge on the subject before you spout out things you know nothing about.

[moimeme]

Well you may not 'think' so but that's what you'll find if you study the scholarship around that particular section of the Bible.

[Moose]

Moi, you need to study a little yourself. The disciples clearly asked Jesus about the End of the World.......WORLD!.....what OllyDolly isn't taking into consideration is that Jesus told His Disciples that the entire world will hear the Gospel before the End, (Matt. 24:14)......that was hardly possible during the time OllyDolly is speaking of. There are more clues......but I ain't waistin' them on someone who's so sure of herself

[moimeme]

Yes dear.

 

someone who's so sure of herself

 

It's not me I'm sure of at all. You could not be further wrong. Rather, I'm humble enough to acknowledge that there are experts with far greater knowledge than I on subjects such as these and to whom I defer for expertise on such subjects. Those experts include scholars who have spent years and years studying the Bible and all the history around it and not people who have read the Bible in its umpteenth English translation and think they understand it.

 

You'll see that I often provide quotes to back up my posts - PRECISELY because I know full well that I am not an expert. What I do do very well, however, is find information which has been produced by experts and I use that information to teach myself and to pass on to others.

[Moose]

FINE, I hate having to do this Moi.......but you are the one that's so wrong.......and I'll prove it! Jesus was speaking of both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. Here's a Coffman's commentary on the very subject:

 

He did not declare that "Daniel said" those things but that it was spoken "through Daniel," thus referring the message to God as the giver rather than to Daniel who conveyed it. This constitutes a strong witness for the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Here also is a clue to understanding the broad implications of the prophecy. The "end" spoken of by Daniel was not to take place for a long, long time after the abomination of desolation was set up (Daniel 12:11); and this proves that the Saviour's words apply to that far-off and final end of the world, no less than to the end of the Jewish economy which was accompanied by the shattering of the power of the holy people and the making of an end to "the continual burnt offering" (Daniel 12:7-11).

 

You can find this at: http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=24&verse=1#Mt24_1

 

So.......admit you were wrong.....or can you? This is from an expert in the field.....what say you now???????

[ollydolly]

Originally posted by Moose

So.......admit you were wrong.....or can you? This is from an expert in the field.....what say you now???????

 

Moimeme - you know it is pointless trying to argue with a fundamentalist on any sane subject, let alone eschatology. He is frightened and it clouds his judgement.

 

Moose - people can only admit they are wrong when they truly believe they are - you have made a quote from a fundamentalist scare mongering irrationalist and assume that everyone else is as afraid of god as you and he are.

 

Do some OBJECTIVE study yourself my friend, and set yourself free.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by ollydolly

Moimeme - you know it is pointless trying to argue with a fundamentalist on any sane subject, let alone eschatology. He is frightened and it clouds his judgement.

 

Moose - people can only admit they are wrong when they truly believe they are - you have made a quote from a fundamentalist scare mongering irrationalist and assume that everyone else is as afraid of god as you and he are.

 

Do some OBJECTIVE study yourself my friend, and set yourself free.

 

This is what is so great about free will. God loves us all and never forces us to love him. Just like with any relationship. If we try to force love on to others, it never works.

 

But, this is why we have a Heaven and a Hell.

 

Enjoy

 

(Moose, I applaud your efforts!)

[BlockHead]

ollydolly

What is the difference between moimeme and Moose?

moimeme likes to bluff, and fold.

Moose will call her bluff.

 

She can talk about the countless experts, but until she produces something, it is all empty talk.

Maybe you are one of those people who think there is something noble about the process of bluffing and folding.

[moimeme]

Moose and BH - what a pair.

 

Again, BH, it was Moose's bluff called. His so-called 'expert' is no such thing. That someone posts his opinions on a website does not make him an 'expert' even if he calls himself one.

[ollydolly]

Originally posted by BlockHead

ollydolly

What is the difference between moimeme and Moose?

moimeme likes to bluff, and fold.

Moose will call her bluff.

 

She can talk about the countless experts, but until she produces something, it is all empty talk.

Maybe you are one of those people who think there is something noble about the process of bluffing and folding.

 

Moose didn't call her bluff BH - he claimed he could "prove" his unquestionable rightness by quoting some irrelevant "opinion" from a fundamentalist theologian who has written (yet another) commentary on a subject that you can never in a million years "prove" as fact, because it is speculation about abstract things that cannot be seen (god, prophecy, the afterlife etc) and are the product of superstitious minds (faith before fact, emotive perspectives, paranoid beliefs).

 

In science, nothing is TRUE until it can be proven. Opinion counts for nothing unless it is substantiated by facts. This is the great flaw of Chrisitanity: One has to abdicate reality in order to keep hold of faith.

 

Moose demanded that Moimeme admit he was right when his argument to prove it was non-existent. All he did was put forth his own superstitious beliefs and quoted someone else who thinks like he does - probably the person he has second-handed his thinking from. I actually thought he must be stoned or something.

[BlockHead]

moimeme

Again, BH, it was Moose's bluff called. His so-called 'expert' is no such thing. That someone posts his opinions on a website does not make him an 'expert' even if he calls himself one.

James Burton Coffman seems to have a few books published, and he seems to have the title of Dr.

Maybe you should find out exactly what this guy's credentials are before you say something like that. His credentials probably surpass your own.

 

Is this your strategy? Brand every source Moose provides as 'not an expert' as an alternative to actually providing 'experts' of your own.

Maybe it is underhanded, but since when have you been a woman of principle?

ollydolly

In science, nothing is TRUE until it can be proven. Opinion counts for nothing unless it is substantiated by facts. This is the great flaw of Chrisitanity: One has to abdicate reality in order to keep hold of faith.

Take a good long look at the title of this thread.

I think Biblical experts should be used when talking about the interpretations of "The End of the world" from "A Biblical Perspective".

If anything, I think you are making a fool of yourself.

[ollydolly]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Take a good long look at the title of this thread.

I think Biblical experts should be used when talking about the interpretations of "The End of the world" from "A Biblical Perspective".

If anything, I think you are making a fool of yourself.

 

That is a pretty harsh opinion BH.

 

I do regard myself as a bit of a biblical expert.

1 - I know the bible well

2 - I have a degree in Theology (I could be a pastor of a church if I wanted to lead people astray)

3 - I have a degree in Religious History

4 - I have a degree in Metaphysics

 

I thought it was women who traditionally had a problem with staying unemotional when it came to debate?

[BlockHead]

ollydolly

I'm not interested in your credentials assuming what you say is true.

If you think you are some sort of 'expert' then you shouldn't have trouble providing 'experts' and sources.

Whoever you think you are, I don't think you are immune to stupidity.

[ollydolly]

Really Blockhead - I wouldn't have thought you were this fragile!

 

You have abandoned reason and resorted to insults - the sign of a person who stands on shaky ground and knows it.

 

Jesus espoused that faith will make you whole - but it is truth that sets you free. You must understand the difference between BELIEVING something to be true, and KNOWING something to be true. Once the Church "believed" the world to be flat and executed anyone who taught otherwise. Now we "know" the world is round but it took a solid amount of fact over faith to establish that. People have been killed for contradicting superstitious nonsense - I would say that is stupidity.

[BlockHead]

ollydolly

Once the Church "believed" the world to be flat and executed anyone who taught otherwise. Now we "know" the world is round but it took a solid amount of fact over faith to establish that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth <- The Flat Earth Theory courtesty of wikipedia.org

Several of these writers are not thought to have been influential in the middle ages due to a scarcity of references to their work in mediaeval writings. Different historians have argued either for very high (e.g. Andrew Dickson White) or very low (e.g. Jeffrey Russell) influence. Russell, a professor of history at Santa Barbara who has written widely on mediaeval religion, heresy and witchcraft, explored the issue in Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Russell claims that the Flat Earth theory is a myth used to impugn pre-modern civilisation, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Andrew Dickson White's work is not taken seriously by modern historians of science because of his serious historiographic flaws including using a fictionalised history of Christopher Columbus as a source. Today essentially all professional mediaevalists agree with Russell that the "mediaeval flat earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat earthers" were the exception.

Do you have anything to add?

As a historian, you should be able to provide some sources supporting your arguments.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by ollydolly

Really Blockhead - I wouldn't have thought you were this fragile!

 

You have abandoned reason and resorted to insults - the sign of a person who stands on shaky ground and knows it.

 

Jesus espoused that faith will make you whole - but it is truth that sets you free. You must understand the difference between BELIEVING something to be true, and KNOWING something to be true. Once the Church "believed" the world to be flat and executed anyone who taught otherwise. Now we "know" the world is round but it took a solid amount of fact over faith to establish that. People have been killed for contradicting superstitious nonsense - I would say that is stupidity.

 

Olly,

 

If believers are wrong and you are right, no big deal.

But if believers are right (and I believe we are), then VERY BIG DEAL.

 

Now, I wouldn't say that is the basis to accept Christ, but I think you should perhaps read "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. The information provided is by experts who blow your "crentials" away and all believe in Christ.

 

Cheers and good luck to you. I certainly hope God wraps his arms around you one day.

[ollydolly]

BH - I agree that the flat earth theory was not as widely held as modern history has made out. However, it was widely believed by the non-scholastic arm of Catholism and to condradict it was heretical. Cosmas's treatise on topography was considered "the truth" by most non-scholastic monastics who dedicated their lives to mission work - hence his ideas spread and took a long time before Copernicus's radical scientific ideas superceded them in the common mind. I understand that even the greeks back in the time of Aristotle had ideas that the earth was spherical in nature - but it couldn't be proven and the Church did not have an open mind to inquire into such proovings - Cosmas's theory was based on scripture afterall and was easier to swallow for those that held the scriptures as sacred truth.

 

My point however, is that along with geocentricity and other scientific theories in the middle ages, death and torture were measured out on the basis of contradicting "beliefs". The most dangerous vocation during this time was to be a scientist - one who put faith aside in order to establish objective facts.

 

Remember that history itself is seldom accurate. It is a study of speculation according to subjective experiences that are recorded with hopefully some objectivity - but are often not.

[ollydolly]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

Olly,

Now, I wouldn't say that is the basis to accept Christ, but I think you should perhaps read "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. The information provided is by experts who blow your "crentials" away and all believe in Christ.

 

Cheers and good luck to you. I certainly hope God wraps his arms around you one day.

 

Thankyou for your kind wish Confused.

 

I have in fact read that book at found it to be subjective in nature and quite redundant. The art of science is first to put away all preconceived notions in order to establish an objective truth. A creation-scientist cannot do that first requirement as his faith is the first thing he holds sacred and therefore the premise he starts from. Creation-science is a contradiction in terms.

 

It is a very dangerous thing to surrender your own mind to the opinions of other "experts". Surely as human beings made in the image of god, we owe it to ourselves to trust our own judgment on the nature of life, man and the universe. Afterall, we are blessed with the capacity to think for ourselves in order to make a life we are proud to call our own.

[moimeme]

It is a very dangerous thing to surrender your own mind to the opinions of other "experts". Surely as human beings made in the image of god, we owe it to ourselves to trust our own judgment on the nature of life, man and the universe. Afterall, we are blessed with the capacity to think for ourselves in order to make a life we are proud to call our own.

 

Um. I hope you didn't mean that quite the way it sounds. The reason you got into this dispute was that you were discussing with folks who generally do trust their capacities to 'think for themselves' rather than finding out what experts on topics have to say. I agree that one ought not surrender one's brain to any particular 'expert' and certainly that people who claim expertise need to back that up with more than their own claims, however IMHO it is vital to read what genuine experts have written, weigh it carefully, conduct your own analysis, and then make judgements.

 

It is because people rely far too much on their own judgement without the aid of any information that a lot of problems exist.

[Moose]

This is what I mean by Moi being wrong.....and she should admit it. She's says one thing then another.......First she says this:

However, read ollydolly's post. That's the real information.

Then she says this:

Well you may not 'think' so but that's what you'll find if you study the scholarship around that particular section of the Bible

.THEN THIS:

Originally posted by moimeme His so-called 'expert' is no such thing. That someone posts his opinions on a website does not make him an 'expert' even if he calls himself one.

AH HA! Same as Olly Dolly then.....right? You're as bad as John Kerry.........

Moimeme - you know it is pointless trying to argue with a fundamentalist on any sane subject, let alone eschatology. He is frightened and it clouds his judgement.

So now I'm a fundamentalist......interesting......new one on me. I speak truth. From God's inspired word and I spread it like I'm commanded too. To you they're opinions and if you choose to believe it's a result of my Brain being re-wired by some fundamental Church......so be it. The word is IN me......there's no denying it. I don't care to have a piece of friggin' paper saying I hold a certain amount of worldly knowledge. I know in my heart what is truth and it'll piss a lot of people off. (I've been warned by God Himself that'll happen).......Both of you can counter until you're blue in the face......Tiki began this thread speaking to me anyway...........I hope she follows my advice and check those books out.......

 

BTW......thanks Confused.......B'sIC!!!!

[BlockHead]

ollydolly

Cosmas's treatise on topography was considered "the truth" by most non-scholastic monastics who dedicated their lives to mission work...

Two question.

1. How can sailors navigate with a flat earth map especially over long distances?

2. Why would such radical non-scholastic monastics travel with round earth sailors?

ollydolly

hence his ideas spread and took a long time before Copernicus's radical scientific ideas superceded them in the common mind.

Copernicus argued that the world was not the center of the universe. There is a certain level of stupidity in challenging the the church during the Protestant Reformation. Maybe you like fools.

I remember hearing that there was more error in the calculations for his model of the solar system. Kepler's elliptic model for the solar system was much better.

ollydolly

Remember that history itself is seldom accurate. It is a study of speculation according to subjective experiences that are recorded with hopefully some objectivity - but are often not.

Funny. You use it to browbeat Christians. How subjective is that?

ollydolly

It is a very dangerous thing to surrender your own mind to the opinions of other "experts".

And you are no exception. I don't think moimeme figured this out.

I approach all with a certain level of scepticism.

 

I wonder if I can arm-twist you into crying uncle.

moimeme

It is because people rely far too much on their own judgement without the aid of any information that a lot of problems exist.

Are you talking about the information I usually provide?

What kind of conclusions have I come to?

1. ollydolly probably isn't a very good historian.

2. moimeme has folded.

[moimeme]

Moose, your post made zero sense. BH - whatever. Olly - over to you. I just can't be bothered.

[blind_otter]

I gave her some websites with references to look at already. So neener neener.

 

Take yourself too seriously and you are on the fast track to having a stroke. I'm just sayin'.

 

Now back to our reguarly scheduled narrowly defined world views....

[BlockHead]

blind_otter

I gave her some websites with references to look at already. So neener neener.

If you are confident in you sources, you should at least share and cite them with the rest of us.

Maybe I'm the only person here who thinks plagerism is a bad thing.

blind_otter

Take yourself too seriously and you are on the fast track to having a stroke. I'm just sayin'.

I have a low threshold for browbeating, and proud displays of stupidity.

[Moose]

Originally posted by moimeme

Moose, your post made zero sense. BH - whatever. Olly - over to you. I just can't be bothered.

Ok, who else didn't make any sense of my post? I thought it was as obvious as the sky being blue.........