Why have I never seen this before?!

Discussion in 'Controversial' started by teddyv, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    A horseshoe crab is not much different from a trilobite anatomically.

    Maybe stuff that lived in water survived

    Alga, leviathan....coelacanth, gators...
     
  2. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    You just said everything perished.
     
  3. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    I lied
     
    ProDeo likes this.
  4. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    Different translations use different terms. Some use “destroyed.” Some use “perished.” All to describe the same thing. From looking at several translations, I’m getting the sense that 2 Peter 3:5-6 is specifically referring to God wiping out wicked mankind...during the flood of Noah, not something before that. And not destroying the earth itself and reforming it like people espousing “gap theory” believe. If you read multiple translations of this scripture it’s hard not to come away with the sense that it’s referring to God wiping out mankind (not the earth itself) during the flood of Noah’s time. Of course, you’re free to form a different opinion...
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  5. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    Looking at several translations myself, I agree with you that it does not read like an earlier flood wiped out some proto-creation.
     
  6. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    I bought & read 2 of his books. They're fantastic, as is his website.

    Guess he took a break from theology for a bit to pursue web comics and other nerdy things, but he's back to it now and we're all richer for it.
     
  7. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    Certainly, but just because they wrote it earlier doesn't mean they told it earlier. Oral traditions can't be dated because ... well, there's no written record. Therefore arguing about who might have borrowed from who is meaningless since neither side can prove or disprove their position.

    Unless somebody got a time machine ... in which case, take me with you.
     
  8. ProDeo

    ProDeo What a day for a day dream

    Yep, it has becomes a matter of faith. It's the same with the concept of hell BTW, nothing in the OT, 1000+ years known in pagan religion(s) before we hear about it for the first time notable by Jesus.
    I will ask my old friend Spielberg if he has one left.
     
  9. ProDeo

    ProDeo What a day for a day dream

    Did you read his new stuff? If I did not know better it has the writing style, word choices, content of an agnostic.
     
  10. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    The two I read so far are "Jesus and the End of Death" (addressing why allowing oneself to hold a hope -- not doctrine, mind you -- for universal reconciliation is not only reasonable but also supported by and encouraged in Scripture ... and he's not the only one who's taken the time to espouse such a viewpoint; once you check into that sort of thing you run across quite a few pleasant surprises along those lines, including some put out by, say, ministers of the Eastern Orthodox faith) and "He Has Conquered" (this is basically a compilation of his articles on Revelation). Both are well researched and well worth reading and contemplating/mulling over.
     
  11. ProDeo

    ProDeo What a day for a day dream

  12. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    He certainly appears to not be an inerrantist. I think he brings some good things up. I'd appreciate some more references though.
     
  13. hisleast

    hisleast FISHBEAT!

  14. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    There are "cows" that need to be shot, because they're not even cows.

    Having said that, there's this thing about "dualistic prophecies" (or whatever that's called) where a prophetic utterance can have more than one meaning/application. So you could reasonably make the case that yes, this passage did in fact apply to Hezekiah (who the details of this prophecy did, in fact, apply to, and we can prove this historically by reading passages about him) but that it was also forecasting onto someone else (Jesus) who would be a more "perfect" fulfillment of that prophecy (i.e. the long-awaited Messiah). Although I think just leaving it with Hezekiah is a) a lot less of a stretch and b) takes nothing away from Jesus in the end.
     
    teddyv likes this.
  15. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    But is it the case that most take Isaiah 9 to be a prophecy exclusively about Jesus? He makes a decent argument for why Isaiah is referring to Hezekiah, but it's not an argument for why we couldn't also doubly interpret the prophecy - I don't know that you could make an argument for this other than one that is merely opinion. (Good to see that he's writing again, though.)
     
  16. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    I think you mean the 'type/anti-type'? Anyway, I thought that this was almost the dominant view of many prophecies about the coming of Christ.
     
  17. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    I have a problem with people trying to make scripture say something other than what it’s actually saying. If Isaiah 9 is merely referring to Hezekiah, then we shouldn’t try to make it apply to Jesus if that’s not actually who it’s referring to. It’s dishonest and it gives ammunition to people who hate Christians and who claim we cherry pick the Bible and try to make it say what we WANT it to say.
     
  18. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    You mean like the Oliver Discourse having no application to Revelation...

    That sort of thing?
     
  19. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    I haven’t read that, so I can’t really comment.
     
  20. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    Olivet Discourse is what he meant, if that threw you off. Particularly around a lot of the end times language Jesus used. Most of it was directly applicable to the destruction to Jerusalem, but other parts certainly speak to beyond that.
     

Share This Page