Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,661 Year: 983/6,935 Month: 264/719 Week: 52/204 Day: 1/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof and analysis of Biblical end time accuracey [Synnegi]
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 155 (171531)
12-26-2004 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by umliak
12-25-2004 11:08 PM


Re: Questions for clarification.
Umliak:
Like your good self I am no scholar. Based on my limited knowledge though, I have come across several points you make, which are enthusiastic contradictions, of the basic biblical tenet. It is this which leads me to question what book, and/or belief you are actually basing your comments and 'supposed' analysis on.
Is it the bible?
If so, then I would like to know; are you aware, of the extent that the bible record has been altered?
You mentioned previously, chapters removed, are you also aware that the 'Bible', has in fact been transcribed repeatedly. Transcribing which includes at least one version done by a witches coven, and others by those, motivated to distort the basic tenet of the book.
I have also read this entire thread, and have seen little in relevance, to 'end times accuracy'. Which according to scripture, is revealed only in revelations.
What I have seen in this thread, is a proposed justification, of the existance of the biblical God. I personally would consider an 'analysis of biblical end time accuracy', to include itemised evidence; i.e. pestilance, and its correlation to the words of revelations. Rather than a debate as to the existance of God. In all fairness though, I do note little use of quotation marks to cite text. Therefore it is entirely probable, that I have confused, opinion and biblical text.
Have I simply overlooked points you have made, to support your analysis?
Could you shed some light on these points please Umliak.
Shaz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by umliak, posted 12-25-2004 11:08 PM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Nighttrain, posted 12-26-2004 6:25 AM Shaz has replied
 Message 53 by umliak, posted 12-26-2004 3:52 PM Shaz has replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 155 (171543)
12-26-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Nighttrain
12-26-2004 6:25 AM


Re: Questions for clarification.
Thank you for the welcome Nighttrain. After looking around here a little, I can see I best not make comments without having something to show for it. lol Unfortunately I no longer have on hand my citation material, so the best I can do at this time is:-
Francis Bacon and the KJV Bible (Francis Bacon, Ist KJV)
http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/ttt.htm & http://watch.pair.com/another.html (Westcott & Hort)
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html (NKJV)
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit6.html (NIV reference)
http://www.avpublications.com/...tml_tract.htm#anchor1086736 (niv & nasb et al, tract excerpts)
Personally, I am not a big advocate for putting a lot of faith in the written form though (either for or against anything), all is/was subject to interpretation. With enough time and resources, anyone with the ability to tie ends together, can prove or disprove most things. Though forums such as this are wonderful opportunities to grow, and explore the intricacies of the mind.
Thank you again for the welcome, I think I will learn a lot from this site.
Shaz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Nighttrain, posted 12-26-2004 6:25 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 155 (171616)
12-26-2004 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by umliak
12-26-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Questions for clarification.
Umliak:
I apologise if my post offended you. The purpose of my post was to seek clarification, of questions I have in relation to your topic. I also must apologise, that I digressed into the accuracy of the bible, when the book is not the point of contention in this topic. Rather, end time’s accuracy is. What I sought by my questions, was to gain an understanding of what platform you were using for your analysis.
Your proposition is that there is ‘proof and analysis, of biblical end time’s accuracy’.
Proof, I believe to be:-
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
Analysis, I believe to be:-
1 : separation of a whole into its component parts
2 a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture
Biblical end times, I believe to be:-
Revelations (though perhaps I am wrong, if that is the case I shall willingly concede that). The book of Revelations I believe, to be a text about action and consequence, in relation to mankind and its demise.
Accuracy, I believe to be:-
1 : freedom from mistake or error
Therefore your proposal is that the ‘biblical end times’ is accurate, and that there is evidence, concluded by way of analysis.
If you are proposing that accuracy is based on previous biblical text, then I conclude that proves correlation within the book. Though I still do not see how it proves accuracy of the end time’s, as a revelation.
Again I will state, my last two sentences of my previous post:
"it is entirely probable, that I have confused opinion, and biblical text. Have I simply overlooked points you have made, to support your analysis?"
I also am curious as to the intent of this comment:
You can keep informing me of things I lack to type out for you in this thread if you desire, but the thread and its topic remain.
Excuse my ignorance here, but I am unable to comprehend how my post has any correlation on, but the thread and its topic remain. If you choose not to offer clarification for my questions, I do not see how that will have any effect on your topic or thread remaining. For the record, I am more than happy to be shown the error in my approach, or my questions, particularly as I am only new to debating, and here.
Shaz
This message has been edited by Shaz, 12-26-2004 21:30 AMReason: to use qoute boxes, italics, & bold
This message has been edited by Shaz, 12-26-2004 21:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by umliak, posted 12-26-2004 3:52 PM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by umliak, posted 12-27-2004 12:36 PM Shaz has replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 155 (171799)
12-27-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by umliak
12-27-2004 12:36 PM


Re: Questions for clarification.
Umliak writes:
And I supported the passages in Revelation.
In reference to this Umliak. I did state that, I may have overlooked such, and was certainly open to that possibility. Seeking clarification, is something I do to help me understand fact, as opposed to making assumptions. Particularly as a 'newbie', at this site. Rom.15:1-3
Subsequently, I apologise to you, that I have misread the previous 50+ posts.
Umliak writes:
Forgive me; I assumed if somebody was going to challenge the Bible they would have at least read it (or, a lot of it) before attempting to act educated or fit to do so.
I am not sure what you are asking me to forgive you for:
  • That I was challenging the bible.
  • That I have/have not read the bible.
  • That I was attempting to act educated.
I did indeed state that I was no scholar, and certainly not educated in relation to many things. However I feel that my comments may have been perceived with an intent, other than as they were intended. I am sorry if you have found cause to be offended by my words. Acts.24:16
Umliak, there is nothing for me to forgive you for though. I have taken no offence at your comments, though I do find them to be sadly erring in regard to intent, and fact. Rom.14:13
Subsequently, I shall take no more time from your thread.
Regards Shaz

To breathe is to live, to live is to love, love is breath.
Make every breath a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by umliak, posted 12-27-2004 12:36 PM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by umliak, posted 12-28-2004 11:35 AM Shaz has not replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 155 (172303)
12-30-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
12-29-2004 11:36 PM


Re: Tongues
Incorrect use of tongues in the Corinthian church.
Jar writes:
Paul is very clear there that speaking in tongues is worthless and pointless.
Paul was addressing the Corinthian church; because the issue of spiritual gifts was creating a split within the church. As Jar pointed out, Paul noted what the people of the church should strive for in their meetings. He did not say that speaking in the language of the spirit, or tongues as it is commonly known should cease in its entirety though. He did however give clear guidelines as to the appropriate use of the gift, including praying for the gift of interpretation.
1Corinthians14:15
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind, I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind
He then goes on to explain why the church service should be conducted in such a way as to be understood.
1Corinthians14:23-24
So if the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues and some unbelievers come in, will they not say you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever comes in while everybody is prophesising, he will be convinced
Therefore I propose, that not once did Paul ever say that speaking in tongues was worthless or pointless, for an individual. Rather that he proposed the speaking in tongues, was of minor significance during a church service.
Shaz
p.s. See following post for further clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 12-29-2004 11:36 PM jar has not replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 155 (172304)
12-30-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
12-29-2004 2:17 PM


Re: Some clarifiction on tongues
Nosyned writes:
In addition there is no tested, controled cases?
Research study Spanos et al: 60 subjects, of those, 12 learnt glossolalia, and with further study, 70% of those 12, went on to speak glossolalia fluently. = Total fluent glossolalia subjects — 8.4
quote:
Relatedly, the available empirical data fail to support the hypothesis that glossolalics suffer higher levels of psychopathology than nonglossolalics." Spanos, Nicholas P., et al
Glossolalia: possible origins
Shaz
oops typo edit
This message has been edited by Shaz, 31 December 2004 05:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2004 2:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by mikehager, posted 12-30-2004 7:35 PM Shaz has not replied

Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 155 (172306)
12-30-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by sidelined
12-28-2004 7:59 PM


Re: Tongues
Are tongues Glossolalia?
With the increasingly common use of tongues particularly in Pentecostal churches, there is much debate as to what tongues are, and if indeed they are Glossolalia.
quote:
Glossolalia (i.e., speaking in tongues) is vocalization that sounds language like but is devoid of semantic meaning or syntax(Spanos, Nicholas P., et al; "Glossolalia as Learned Behavior: An Experimental Demonstration," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95:21, 1986.)
Sidelined if I recall correctly cited, Robert Todd Carrol.
Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending upon the social expectations of their community.
Glossolalia itself is not indicative of a correlation, between a particular community and an individual manifestation of behaviour. Therefore a statement such as the one above is a generalisation, and inaccurate assumption.
quote:
...but it often occurs in the absence of all such dramatic accompaniments (Spanos & Hewitt, 1979).
quote:
...and their deficiencies as general theories of multiplicity become obvious when these enactments are compared across historical and cultural contexts.
Multiple Identity Enactments and Multiple Personality Disorder: A Socio-cognitive Perspective
One-Stop, Easy to Access Knowledge and Training Hub for Students
Incidents of glossolalia, relevant to other cultures and historical groups, have very little bearing on the glossolalia sweeping Pentecostal churches. As noted above there have been no psychopathological correlations. Unlike glossolalia, echolalia and aphasia are pathological disorders. The glossolalia affecting people, with mental illness has also significant differences, to the ‘tongues’ type glossolalia.
There has also been no drug induced or hypnotic induced affect linked to ‘Pentecostal tongues’, unlike glossolalia in pagan festivals.
quote:
Pagan ecstasy was induced by drugs and intoxicants, loud and relentless drumming that evoked responsive and rhythmical movements of the body, and dissociation from one’s normal stream of consciousness under intense emotional agitation.
Thesis: William Graham MacDonald.
Mr MacDonald also concludes that:
quote:
If anything, biblical glossolalia improves one’s mental equilibrium, because such prayer and praise edifies
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/.../200501_Glossolalia_3.cfm (William MacDonald.)
Sideline cited writes:
All believe they are possessed by the Holy Spirit and the gibberish they utter is meaningful.
Once again, a generalisation, that all believe such to be the case, and an assumption, that the ‘gibberish’, is not meaningful.
Romans8:26
quote:
In the same way the spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the spirit himself intercedes for us, with groans that words cannot express. And He, who searches our hearts, knows the minds of the spirit, because the spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with Gods will.
This quote supports that the spirit, intercedes, and communicates during prayers. Subsequently with such being the case, it is reasonable to assume that to the Christian walk talking in tongues is meaningful for the purpose of their walk. Mike has also already cited 1Corinthians14:2 in message 82.
1Corinthians13:1
quote:
If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal
John4:24
quote:
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
Mt10:19-20
quote:
but when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the spirit of your father speaking through you. Jesus told the disciples.
In summary; glossolalia is admittedly the term given to much of what Pentecostal churches call tongues. The biblical glossolalia has though proven to be different to other forms, in that it is not pathological, and that it is not drug induced. It is also not without purpose, even if it is merely for personal edification and communication between the spirit and God. Scripture as I have illustrated also states, that the spirit has more than one means, of communicating with the Father. By the language of angels, the language of men, and groans that words cannot express.
To date no man, scientific, or research method has been able to measure or determine the validity of every case of professed speaking in tongues. Unrefutably however, is the many uses that directly contravene biblical teachings in regards to its use. Perhaps speaking in tongues, or glossolalia will never be fully understood or accepted by any but those who use it, regardless of belief.
Shaz
This message has been edited by Shaz, 31 December 2004 05:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by sidelined, posted 12-28-2004 7:59 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025