 |
|
|
"Yet the apostle John describes a reality that has only recently come into focus: global banking, laser scanning, and the universal bar code. . .Again, what better descriptive term could John have found in the ancient world than "the mark," which would enable every citizen to buy or sell who had it?"
-- Tal Brooke
|
|
| |
News: Update: Beyond Creation Science
Posted on Tuesday, January 29 @ 05:51:14 PST by Virgil |
|
We now have a delivery date for the new book! Our printer has informed us that Beyond Creation Science will be delivered by February 15, 2008 at the very latest. We look forward to the arrival of the new books and are prepared to ship orders immediately upon their arrival. If you have already ordered, your book(s) will be on the way very soon.
We thank all of those who have taken advantage of the pre-publication special and placed an early order for the book. Your purchase has helped us with the initial printing cost of the books. In return, we are happy to save you money by offering our very special pre-publication price of $20, postpaid anywhere in the U.S. Quantity orders receive an even deeper discount.
This special pre-publication price will expire on February 15. If you have been thinking about adding this book to your library, then now is the time to place your order. We are confident that you will be very pleased with the professional design, layout, and content of this book that many are already talking about. Now is your chance to get the book at the best possible price and the earliest possible delivery. Don’t delay. The pre-publication special will expire on February 15, 2008.
See BeyondCreationScience.com for ordering information, discussion, and recent developments!
Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn
Co-authors
Beyond Creation Science
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Update: Beyond Creation Science (Score: 1)
 by tom-g on Thursday, January 31 @ 05:54:28 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hey Tim & JL,
I know I said that I was going to wait to buy my copy at TV2008, but after rereading your Introduction and 1st Chapter again I might reconsider my decision as being too hasty. Perhaps it would behoove me to order it early since it is to be considered not just "SUSPECT", but "MORE THAN SUSPECT", (whatever that may be?)
Couldn't have been more of a tantalizing advertising hook even if it was deliberate. Which I am certain you wouldn't have deliberately planned it to be that way? Hmmm????
Regards,
Tom |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by flannery0 on Thursday, January 31 @ 06:15:05 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, January 31 @ 07:20:42 PST
- by flannery0 on Thursday, January 31 @ 09:12:18 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, January 31 @ 10:27:43 PST
- by JL on Thursday, January 31 @ 12:46:15 PST
- by tom-g on Sunday, February 03 @ 11:26:06 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 03 @ 15:11:48 PST
- by chef on Sunday, February 10 @ 17:35:24 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 10 @ 18:56:02 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 04 @ 08:18:57 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, February 04 @ 08:28:29 PST
- by flannery0 on Monday, February 04 @ 08:42:01 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 04 @ 08:48:32 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, February 04 @ 09:09:51 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 05 @ 08:41:33 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, February 05 @ 08:44:42 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, February 05 @ 11:02:10 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, February 05 @ 11:22:56 PST
- by JL on Thursday, January 31 @ 08:22:55 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, January 31 @ 09:41:13 PST
Re: Update: Beyond Creation Science (Score: 1)
by tom-g on Wednesday, February 06 @ 13:36:45 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hey JL,
I just today was able to listen to the RCM pod cast from Sunday. Jason also posted a pod cast explaining what transpired. I think Sam was possibly not completely prepared for the show. Ward is obviously an experienced debater and possibly Sam is not as proficient extemporaneously. I personally would have liked to see Ward explain his position more completely and then see his many fallacies and errors logically Refuted.
Now that I have reread (6 times) your 1st. Chapter, I think your newly revealed mystery of Covenantal theology being derived solely as a result of the simple, literal plain reading of scripture, would have been well able to refute Ward's errors.
I was particularly impressed with your insistence on literally understanding that the prophecy said "Some would not taste of death" and your confirmation of the literal principal of not trying to change the "Some" to "all". I see you consistently carry the plain literal interpretation method out completely throughout the 1st. Chapter.
Knowing Tim's phobia for consistency, consistency, consistency, I can hardly wait to see him insisting that "ALL FLESH and EVERY MAN" in the flood means "ALL" and does not mean "SOME FLESH" and "SOME MEN". Or that our Lord's statements about "All eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" mankind were carried away by the flood. OR Peter's statement that God brought the flood upon the whole world of ungodly mankind, not SOME. Or the complete destruction of ALL of the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah, Not SOME, just as God literally predicted he would.
Your new book was quite a departure from the old one in the method of PLAIN LITERAL interpretation and not metaphorical. I know you plan to carry out that method consistently throughout. Why else would you use your opening chapter to set the tone for the rest of the book if that was not your plan?
Although I do have somewhat against you. I could have wished that you would not have engaged in the fallacy of "Illicit Conversion" concerning the Lord's statement about John not dying. You correctly observe at first it was a possibility that John might live until the Lord returned, but by the end of the paragraph that possibility had been illicitly converted into a positive fact written in italics to accentuate the positive fact.
It is unfortunate that you would have done that since that prophecy of the Lord, together with his prophecy of Peter's death is your foundational demonstration of the truth of the plain literal method that you are using and it is based upon a fallacy.
In any case I am looking forward to seeing your consistent application of the plain literal reading of scripture throughout the rest of the book. As you are well aware, this is the method I have always advocated as the only method that results in Preterism.
Tom |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by JL on Wednesday, February 06 @ 14:58:40 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 06 @ 15:19:03 PST
- by tom-g on Wednesday, February 06 @ 18:16:49 PST
- by tom-g on Wednesday, February 06 @ 18:45:39 PST
- by tom-g on Wednesday, February 06 @ 19:01:28 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, February 06 @ 19:18:33 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, February 07 @ 08:11:29 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, February 07 @ 08:34:10 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, February 07 @ 09:56:54 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, February 07 @ 13:17:27 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, February 07 @ 18:38:10 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, February 07 @ 19:23:16 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, February 07 @ 21:54:19 PST
- by Starlight on Friday, February 08 @ 14:52:44 PST
- by tom-g on Friday, February 08 @ 15:16:43 PST
- by Starlight on Friday, February 08 @ 15:29:19 PST
- by tom-g on Friday, February 08 @ 22:30:56 PST
- by chef on Saturday, February 09 @ 07:53:27 PST
- by tom-g on Saturday, February 09 @ 09:35:56 PST
- by tom-g on Saturday, February 09 @ 09:56:35 PST
Disappointment - Yes, Surprise - No (Score: 1)
by valensname on Saturday, February 16 @ 11:33:58 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well my copy of Beyond Creation Science arrived today and I was not at all surprised to find no exegesis of Genesis. Comments regarding verses, yes, but any real exegesis of Genesis - not at all.
I would say that JL said that there would be an exegesis of Chapters 1 to 3 and the chapters on the flood but even when I reference exactly where he says something, he doesn't respond without saying I'm lying etc... so I won't bother.
Norm (regarding the Foreward) maybe your grandfather did have Genesis right. Maybe you are the one who has it wrong.
I said to Tim that I would write a review on the book but there is not enough exegesis to bother with it. The book appears to be just more of the same that has come from this web site on those who strongly support a billion year old Earth and a local Genesis flood. Oh, I'll get around to reading all of it, but when people strongly hold to a view that clearly contradicts Scripture they don't appear to want to admit they could be wrong and don't reason well. So my review for now is that those who support this book, to me, have the same mindset of those who say the Bible doesn't say homosexual behavior is a sin and applaud homosexual ministers and marriages in "churches". The billion year old/local crowd have twisted Scripture to fit what humanistic science says about the age of the Earth.
I'm sure the discussions on this website will be lively once people read the book but I'm done discussing it here.
Glenn |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, February 16 @ 11:50:45 PST
- by Life14all on Saturday, February 16 @ 12:31:18 PST
- by JL on Saturday, February 16 @ 14:46:55 PST
- by plymouthrock on Saturday, February 16 @ 20:11:58 PST
- by JL on Saturday, February 16 @ 22:06:56 PST
- by Starlight on Saturday, February 16 @ 14:55:22 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Saturday, February 16 @ 21:32:48 PST
- by Starlight on Saturday, February 16 @ 22:15:06 PST
- by tom-g on Sunday, February 17 @ 14:21:55 PST
- by Starlight on Sunday, February 17 @ 17:44:10 PST
- by tom-g on Sunday, February 17 @ 21:30:44 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, February 18 @ 05:51:44 PST
- by tom-g on Monday, February 18 @ 14:24:57 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Saturday, February 16 @ 16:19:28 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, February 16 @ 16:38:06 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Saturday, February 16 @ 21:31:52 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, February 16 @ 22:03:07 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Sunday, February 17 @ 07:58:21 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 17 @ 08:46:37 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Sunday, February 17 @ 09:22:14 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 17 @ 09:36:36 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Monday, February 18 @ 08:00:19 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 18 @ 08:08:40 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Monday, February 18 @ 12:31:27 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, February 18 @ 13:52:22 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 18 @ 15:05:51 PST
- by Spartan-117 on Monday, February 18 @ 16:16:49 PST
- by mazuur on Monday, February 18 @ 17:55:25 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, February 18 @ 19:15:23 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 18 @ 18:48:46 PST
- by Life14all on Monday, February 18 @ 09:00:23 PST
- by JL on Saturday, February 16 @ 23:46:13 PST
- by mazuur on Saturday, February 16 @ 21:46:40 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, February 16 @ 22:05:47 PST
- by Starlight on Saturday, February 16 @ 22:22:50 PST
Clarification (Score: 1)
by valensname on Sunday, February 17 @ 09:16:54 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Months ago I submitted A View of Creation by Ashby Camp as an example of the type of exegesis/analysis/exposition/commentary that I was requesting from Tim and JL and I recall asking you Norm if you were willing to discuss the age of the Earth and the Genesis flood beginning with Scripture. If I recall correctly JL either said or to me suggested this type of analysis would be included in the book. However, it is not. And Norm, I believe you said that then you didn’t have the time to get into that type of discussion. If we can discuss Scripture beginning with Scripture then I’m in but if it is just quoting a passage and then making comments, then I see that we will get nowhere just as we have in the past.
I could go through BCS and make critical remarks and post them on the web but what would be the point unless we stay in context and discuss Scripture. BCS makes the point of beginning with, “That is the natural reading of the passage.” I’m only asking for the same thing regarding starting in Genesis 1:1 and going with the natural reading of the passage. The book to me is a smoke screen with a lot of information thrown at the reader to present a view without it being rooted in Scripture.
We all live in American and thus can express our views. I see many problems with the view presented by BCS and your view Norm of Genesis but you are free to have it and express it to others. I just don’t see the point in a discussion unless it begins with Scripture and starts with the natural reading of the passage.
I'll monitor the discussions but don't plan on joining in.
Glenn |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Starlight on Sunday, February 17 @ 11:48:53 PST
- by valensname on Sunday, February 17 @ 14:21:06 PST
- by Starlight on Sunday, February 17 @ 14:46:32 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 17 @ 13:03:19 PST
- by tom-g on Sunday, February 17 @ 13:55:25 PST
- by JL on Sunday, February 17 @ 18:27:40 PST
- by tom-g on Monday, February 18 @ 15:15:49 PST
- by JL on Monday, February 18 @ 15:47:11 PST
- by tom-g on Thursday, February 21 @ 10:24:00 PST
| 
|
