BDW

Christadelphian
  • Content count

    827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

BDW last won the day on May 15

BDW had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

629 Excellent

About BDW

  • Rank
    Power User
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Adelaide, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

807 profile views
  1. I thoroughly agree with you on all of the above.
  2. I don't. Most Christadelphians on this forum probably don't although it's likely the majority opinion in the wider Christadelphian community. It's based on little more than the fact that Daniel uses the terminology 'king of the north' and Ezekiel 38 references the 'uttermost parts of the north'.
  3. Considering Elpis Israel was written in 1848 and the Diaglott in 1864, I doubt it. However, JT did have some contact with Benjamin Wilson.
  4. I daresay some Christadelphians could live with your views as expressed here.
  5. What's your Biblical substantiation for this?
  6. You're assuming Ezekiel 38 follows chronologically from Ezekiel 37. That's not necessarily the case given Ezekiel 38 is a new vision in its own right, not a continuation of the Ezekiel 37 narrative.
  7. Actually there are still philosophers subscribing to Cartesian dualism in some form (e.g. Keith Ward). Also, I doubt Disciple is still looking for resources on epistemology 5 years down the track...
  8. The Aramaic section of Daniel overall seems to have more relevance to Gentiles, I agree. Chapter 8 onwards is more Israel-centric. I guess in light of that then it's fair to say there's probably just 2 legs because men tend to just have 2 legs (i.e. just part of the symbol's colour not a core part of the message).
  9. Well, yes and no. Symbols in each chapter focus on different elements to highlight particular things. Persia, for example is a lopsided bear in Dan 7 but a ram with 2 horns, one of which is broken off, in Dan 8. So Dan 7 just says there's uneven power in the bear, whereas Dan 8 makes the point that one power actually supplants the other. The important thing to note is that these symbols aren't just about pagan history in general, but about pagan history insofar as it affects God's people. In relation to that, the most significant thing about the Greek empire(s) was to note how the Seleucids and Ptolemies impacted the post-exilic Jews in the holy land. It's a fair point you make though and it's important not to push the symbology too far. Much like the parables. There's primary points being made overall, and some details are just part of the symbol/allegory's colour/flavour.
  10. One could attribute significance to the two thighs as being representative of the king of the north and king of the south discussed at detail in Daniel 11.
  11. It's not just orthopraxy in general that's important but a specific type of orthopraxy. No one does orthopraxy like the Jews have done for centuries, and yet Jesus says that isn't what God is looking for. God is looking for orthopraxy that is defined in terms of relationships: I don't think that that kind of orthopraxy necessarily springs from a set of tightly, analytically defined doctrines. That said, there is no doubt that a rational faith, a deep understanding of scripture, and a well reasoned understanding of God and his purpose ought to provoke positive Christian action in one's life.
  12. In the conservative meetings I would say that ESV is a more popular modern translation than NKJV. I think in many respects that comes down to 2 things: It's a translation in the Tyndale/KJV tradition (i.e. it's what the NKJV should have been - well, sort of... the NRSV is really what the NKJV should have been but I digress). It's very available in a lot of attractive formats including wide margin editions. Much more available than the NKJV.
  13. I think that sums up the situation perfectly.
  14. ESV is quite popular here in Adelaide with a few NET readers. A smattering of NIV but KJV still dominates in a lot of cases.
  15. The observations you make here are quite valid. For context, this talk was originally prepared by me in 2011 when I was presenting it in a more conservative context, I tweaked and tidied it a little before presenting it last week but it was done at short notice and if I was writing it from scratch now, I would add more nuance in a number of points including the ones you have noted above.