Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy for Buzsaw
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 385 (143798)
09-21-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Rei
09-21-2004 7:34 PM


The Rest Of Rei's Link Chart, Not Posted
1. Your link was dead when I tried.
Yes, and you didn't need to say so, because I said so when I posted it. I posted the link address, nevertheless so as to give proper credit for the quote. I have since edited the post with directions for accessing the link. This is what I edited:
Buz edit:
Wikipedia
(The link doesn't seem to work, but you can copy the link above, paste it on google search, go to bottom of page, about last paragraph for the statement.)
Rei:
2. Your dates of category 4 and 5 hurricanes are wrong, too. We had unnamed Atlantic hurricanes (dates listed are the date of first detection of >= 160mph winds) onl........
1. Correction: These were not my dates. They were the link link chart dates which I quoted.
2. No Rei. Had you read the link quote opening statement carefully and if you had not CROPPED the REST of your link chart out which shows which ones were devastating landfall storms, you would've seen that the link list was correct from 1935, the date from which the statement begins from. Your link doesn't show the significant late ones which my link list does include. The damaging landfall cat 4,5 storms which your link shows in the landfall column from 1935 on agree with the link list I posted of devastating storms up as far as your chart goes. You should've noted that, imo.
.........will a single creationist present some *accurate* data in this thread for once?
Mmmm, no, I won't say it. I won't, I won't!!
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-21-2004 09:32 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 7:34 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Rei, posted 09-22-2004 3:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 317 of 385 (143818)
09-22-2004 2:01 AM


Lysimachus, My WWW Friend And Brother
Hi Marcos. Some here in town are really down on you, but just want you to know I'm your friend and brother. I appreciate the good, intelligent and thorough job you and your brother did on the Exodus thread. That is not to say that, imo, some of the criticism here has been that maybe you should've been a bit more tactful in some statements you've made here in this thread, but hey, we all are guilty of that on occasion, including our counterparts, aren't we?
Just a note to say I am reading and studying the on line Beast/Dragon/Woman book and haven't forgotten you. I'm not finished with it and will need some time in my busy schedule to read up on it prayerfully and carefully in order to evaluate it carefully and thoroughly before responding in depth. So far, I've learned a few things and I've found some serious errors in it which I will address when I am finished with it. There is much truth in it, laced with a substantial amount of error, imo, so far which I will get to when I get a handle on the whole of it. In the mean time as you are awaiting more of my response, I'll mention a thing or two for you to think about.
The prophet Daniel prophesied, I believe, in the 5th century BC, whereas the prophet John prophesied in the first century AD. The prophet Daniel was told some stuff/info would be sealed/withheld until a later time. The prophet John was given much, imo, of what Daniel didn't see. It's like Daniel saw the rough sketch of a painter's work and John sees it finished with all the detail. My point here is that too much in the book is assumed from Daniel's visions which the latter prophet, John, sees more clearly in detail. Thus, in order to determine what is to come for the latter days, one must not over-ride the more detailed picture with the obscure, as I believe the book has done. For example, The 10 horned beast of Revelation 17, 18, hates Mystery Bablylon, five times identified as a city and eventually destroys her with fire in one hour. Question: How then can the beast of Revelation 13 and 17, which are one and the same, be one and the same as the harlot woman, Mystery Babylon, which the beast hates, persecutes and eventually destroys in one hour?
I don't mean to make this an exclusive dialog with Marcos. If others wish to jump in here with comments, relative yada, (as some are prone to do) or whatever, please feel free, but remember, I said, relative yada.
Also, I am aware that though this thread is concerning my take on prophecy, I am aware that it is Mark's thread, so Mark, (or admin) if you'd rather we do a separate thread for this, just say so.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-22-2004 01:05 AM

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 318 of 385 (143819)
09-22-2004 2:09 AM


I still don't understand what prophecy is.
Anyone can make statements about the future - that's very common. It's very easy to make predictions about events that will happen in the future with no supernatural input whatsoever.
In fact, anybody who tries to do this rapidly discovers some obvious things, like, the more general and nonspecific you make your predictions, the more likely something will happen that fits them.
Also, certain predictions are self-fulfilling - the very act of making the prediction influences events in favor of the prediction coming true.
So, by what means do we distinguish between prophecy of this sort, which is really just a kind of cleverness with no supernatural component; and the "supernatural" prophecy purported to be in the Bible?
If clever people can make startlingly accurate predictions about the future; or else phrase predictions in such a way that a staggeringly large number of events can appear to have been "predicted"; why conclude that the "prophecy" in the Bible is anything else?

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2004 2:35 AM crashfrog has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 319 of 385 (143825)
09-22-2004 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 2:09 AM


CF, if you would really get serious about these prophecies, stop and really think through, that if you were alive when they were prophesied, how impossible some of them would seem to you for fulfillment, you might have a different appreciation for them. For example, suppose you lived in the first century AD and someone came up and prophesied to you, whose pocket contained copper, gold or silver coins for sustenance, that some day those copper, gold and silver coins would be replaced with marks and numbers and that without the marks and numbers you would have no sustenance. Think about that as that likelihood is becoming reality as we speak, while I go and get some sleep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 2:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 2:51 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 323 by jar, posted 09-22-2004 10:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 320 of 385 (143829)
09-22-2004 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Buzsaw
09-22-2004 2:35 AM


For example, suppose you lived in the first century AD and someone came up and prophesied to you, whose pocket contained copper, gold or silver coins for sustenance, that some day those copper, gold and silver coins would be replaced with marks and numbers and that without the marks and numbers you would have no sustenance.
What's impossible about that? Once you've abstracted wealth into coins, and once you have a system of mathematics, further abstraction doesn't really seem that outlandish.
People in ancient times were primitive, Buz, not idiots.
AbE: Actually, it turns out (as I do more research) that the reason this is not such an unsurprising "prophecy" is that they'd already been doing this for 300 years:
quote:
When Egypt fell under the rule of a Greek dynasty, the Ptolemies (323-30 BC) the old system of warehouse banking reached a new level of sophistication. The numerous scattered government granaries were transformed into a network of grain banks with what amounted to a central bank in Alexandria where the main accounts from all the state granary banks were recorded. This banking network functioned as a giro system in which payments were effected by transfer from one account to another without money passing. As double entry booking had not been invented credit transfers were recorded by varying the case endings of the names involved, credit entries being in the genitive or possessive case and debit entries in the dative case.
It's not a surprising prophecy, Buz. They were already doing this.
CF, if you would really get serious about these prophecies
I am really serious about prophecy. But even the ancient Greeks realized the difficulty in distinguishing between real clairvoyance and totally natural phenomenon like intentionally vague predictions and self-fulfilling predictions.
By every indication, Buz, it's you who is not serious about prophecy, because you don't know how to recognize it.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-22-2004 02:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2004 2:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2004 12:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 321 of 385 (143831)
09-22-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Buzsaw
09-21-2004 10:19 PM


Re: The Rest Of Rei's Link Chart, Not Posted
quote:
2. No Rei. Had you read the link quote opening statement carefully and if you had not CROPPED the REST of your link chart out which shows which ones were devastating landfall storms, you would've seen that the link list was correct from 1935, the date from which the statement begins from. Your link doesn't show the significant late ones which my link list does include. The damaging landfall cat 4,5 storms which your link shows in the landfall column from 1935 on agree with the link list I posted of devastating storms up as far as your chart goes. You should've noted that, imo.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. Your quote from the wikipedia article *defines* devastating hurricanes as being "category 4 and 5" storms - they actually put the definition of devastating in parentheses to make this clear. It's your link, you're on the line for not checking its accuracy when there are such readily available sources out there.
2. You, and the article, claimed to be talking about Atlantic storms, not Atlantic storms that made landfall in the US. What right do you have to change after the fact? (of course, changing your definition doesn't help - see below)
3. The data that I didn't copy from the article about cat 5 hurricanes that made landfall in the US (which seems to be what you wanted me to include):
3A) Doesn't match up with your list, and
3B) Hurts your point.
Let me paste it below:
"Through 1998, only twenty-two Atlantic storms have reached this intensity, and only eight were of category 5 strength at time of landfall. Of these 22, only two made U.S. landfall: the 1935 Florida Keys hurricane and Hurricane Camille, which hit the Mississippi coastline in 1969."
The hurricanes from the 1980s and 1990s *Did Not Strike The US As Category 5*, and so if that is how you're redefining the list that you posted, you're completely wrong. The only ones to strike the US as category 5 (up through 1998, the last datapoint) were in 1935 and 1969. Go ahead - plot your apocalyptic curve based on those whopping two datapoints.
Or perhaps you were referring to this:
"Hurricanes which had reached Category 5 intensity but had weakened by the time of U.S. landfall include: hurricanes of 1928, 1938 (New England Hurricane), and 1947, plus Donna (1960), Ethel (1960), Carla (1961), Beulah (1967), David (1979), Allen (1980), Hugo (1989), and Mitch (1998)."
So, our datapoints using that definition are 1928, 1938, 1961, 1967, 1979, 1980, 1989, and 1998 (and there's the ones who stayed at Cat. 5, in 1935 and 1969). So, our differences in years are: +7, +3, +23, +8, +2, +12, +1, +9, +9. Do you see some sort of apocalyptic pattern? I certainly don't.
If neither of these are the definition that you want, then state the definition that you want. If you can't make a solid definition that works, then drop your claim.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2004 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2004 12:33 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 329 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2004 11:16 AM Rei has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 385 (143865)
09-22-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by mike the wiz
09-21-2004 7:12 PM


Re: DAN's Outburst of home truths
Yes. He laid down his own life, and he can take it back up again. Christ and his father are together, so?
So the way you said it, the prophecy was just about a guy named Christ who suffered. There's a few more aspects that have to be fulfilled for it to approach being a valid prophecy.
Why that's just silly, everybody knows God is.
I know no such thing. He's part of your prophecy... so establish the prophecy's fulfillment. That includes establishing that the major players in the prophecy even exist.
Infact, I only cut out the parts which were relevant to the point I was going to make.
Well gee, I don't know what point you were going to make, but the point we were talking about was whether or not there are valid prophecies in the Bible. It really doesn't establish a valid prophecy to show that a little bit of the prophecy was fulfilled.
This is just arrogance though, surely - as I am obliged to listen but not take your position. So quit the jive about me not hearing - I hear, I know, and I still stick to my guns, get over it!
If you don't have a valid counter-argument, and you continue to present your stuck guns as an argument, then you are being dishonest and/or idiotic.
But I like that in calling me arrogant, you proceeded to do exactly what I said you would... ignore the points presented to you, and keep repeating yourself.
Furthermore, rule 5 is against the Holy Spirit.
What's a "Holy Spirit"?
Therefore, I cannot abide by the rules anyway, I cannot put man before God.
Well that's just ridiculous. We're two men, talking about whether or not a set of prophecies are valid to men. What does God even have to do with it?
I mean, how can we have a rule which rules out the one who made the prophecy because you might think the interpretation of the Spirit is "convoluted".
Got it. These prophecies can't stand on their own merits without us assuming they're valid before we read them.
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-22-2004 11:16 AM

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by mike the wiz, posted 09-21-2004 7:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 323 of 385 (143870)
09-22-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Buzsaw
09-22-2004 2:35 AM


For example, suppose you lived in the first century AD and someone came up and prophesied to you, whose pocket contained copper, gold or silver coins for sustenance, that some day those copper, gold and silver coins would be replaced with marks and numbers and that without the marks and numbers you would have no sustenance.
Actually, marks and numbers as a way of defining wealth predate coins by many thousands of years and continued to be used even during the growth of coinage. The only thing coinage did was to allow an easier method of wealth transfer and greater portability.
Using marks or tokens to account for wealth goes back about 10,000 years at a minimum, perhaps even longer. The vast majority of clay tablets that have be found are simply accounting records, who sold how many sheep, how many cows are in each village.
Here's one link to a short summary of the development of accounting.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2004 2:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 385 (143988)
09-23-2004 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 2:51 AM


LOL!
It's not a surprising prophecy, Buz. They were already doing this.
LOL. Who'd ever have thought of or dreamed up a worldwide system where all world citizens would be required to trade by marks or numbers on (specific) right hand or forehead -- no cash, period -- either the mark, number on specific body locations or starve without electronic wire/wireless tech?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-22-2004 11:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 2:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 12:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 385 (143989)
09-23-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Rei
09-22-2004 3:14 AM


Re: The Rest Of Rei's Link Chart, Not Posted
Rei, the point you're missing is that the Cat 4,5 hurricanes were of such intensity that by the time they hit landfall they did damage -- lots of it. The others of this catagory didn't even hit land. The list is accurate in the link so far as your chart goes. The fact remains that factoring in the most recent storms, damage is on the rise. You can't skirt around that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Rei, posted 09-22-2004 3:14 AM Rei has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 385 (143991)
09-23-2004 12:46 AM


I'll go back and do some refreshing Rei and get back to you as to whether the charts agree.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 327 of 385 (143992)
09-23-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Buzsaw
09-23-2004 12:24 AM


Who'd ever have thought of or dreamed up a worldwide system where all world citizens would be required to trade by marks or numbers on (specific) right hand or forehead -- no cash, period -- either the mark, number on specific body locations or starve without electronic wire/wireless tech?
I'm sorry, I didn't see where it said "electronic wireless tech" in the Bible. Can you show me that passage?
As for the rest, I've answered this already. The people who would have "dreamed" it up are the same people that had been doing it already, in certain limited applications, for the last 400 years.
It's not a great stretch of the imagination to go from the specific to the general, or to see that something works so well that "everybody" will be doing it in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2004 12:24 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2004 3:59 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 330 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2004 11:23 AM crashfrog has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 328 of 385 (144012)
09-23-2004 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 12:46 AM


The Bible According to Buzsaw
Buz is talking about the Mark of the Beast in Revelation.
You see from Buz's point of view the actual Bible we have is wrong. We have to use the one he makes up instead. It's just ideological bias to say that the actual text is better than what Buz makes up (that's what Buz calls it anyway).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 12:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 385 (144074)
09-23-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Rei
09-22-2004 3:14 AM


Re: The Rest Of Rei's Link Chart, Not Posted
If neither of these are the definition that you want, then state the definition that you want. If you can't make a solid definition that works, then drop your claim.
It appears my link statement was pertaining those hitting US. I will concede to that. However the big picture we're missing here in this aside is that global catastrophies are on an alarming increase. Check out the following statements by insurance and other business notables concerning rise in catastrophic climate disasters. I'll post the entire quote from the first on the list which is fairly representative of the rest. Links to the rest are all concerned about climate change for the worse.
"Storms in recent years provided strong evidence of a more extreme climate. The fiercest hurricane recorded in the Caribbean/Atlantic sector was Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, with sustained winds of 175mph and gusts of over 200 mph. The likes of the windstorms of October 1987 and January 1990 in southern UK had not been seen for three centuries.
Losses have also escalated. Fifteen catastrophic storms and floods since 1989 cost insurers more than $80 billion worldwide. Hurricane Andrew set a new $25 billion record when it swept across Florida in 1992, the 1993 Mississippi floods cost $12 billion. According to Swiss Re, natural and man-made catastrophes led to insurance losses of $18.8 billion last year, 73 per cent up on 1993...
Dr Andre Dlugolecki, chief manager, UK operations at General Accident (GA), was one of the insurers at Berlin....'I can't discuss what went on at the seminar, but the best American scientists are now saying there are enough extreme events to create a 90-95 per cent probability that climate change is happening[.'] Dlugolecki says."
Corporate Cover July/August 1995 (in)
http://www.phoenixmags.com.au/cr/jan96/globalw.htm
Global Reinsurance Analysis 1997
404
We looked high and low. | Mount Holyoke College
Munich Re
http://www.munichre.com/...blications/press/eng_970311_f.htm
Natural catastrophe losses will continue to increase / Statements on trends dramatically confirmed.......number of natural catastrophes classified as "great" increased by a factor of 4.4.......
Munich Re
http://www.munichre.com/...blications/press/eng_960319_f.htm
Forbidden
the growing number and intensity of windstorms, thunderstorms, and floods all over the world are attributable to the rapid increase in air and sea temperatures,'' says Berz....
Page not found | :: Welcome to Enviro World ::
Unchecked pollution 'will cause economic collapse'......
The London Times
http://www.mistral.co.uk/hammerwood/citydont.htm
Swiss Re
| Swiss Re
"'Miami -- Eleven times in the past two years, forecaster William Gray has watched a record number of tropical systems churn into monster hurricanes over the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea.
'We'll see hurricane damage like never before," he said. .........
http://www.n-jcenter.com/cane/cane97/gray01.htm
Powerful companies change sides in battle over global warming
http://www.woza.co.za/forum/globalclimato.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Rei, posted 09-22-2004 3:14 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 1:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 385 (144078)
09-23-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 12:46 AM


Say what?
[/qs]I'm sorry, I didn't see where it said "electronic wireless tech" in the Bible. Can you show me that passage?[/qs]
Prophecies seldom give details as to how they will be fulfilled, nor need they. That they predict unusual highly unlikely happenings for the time of prediction is what makes them supernatural. Possibility of global moneyless requirememt for commerce totally undreamed of until at least the industrial revolution.
Gotta be outa town rest of day. So long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 12:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 11:54 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2004 11:54 AM Buzsaw 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 © 2024