Down below on one of my post the comment was made that Dr. Thomas Ice has an illegal doctorate from a small school in Texas. Dr. Tommy Ice has a Doctorate from Tyndale Theological Seminary (http://tyndale.edu/) in Hurst Texas. This happens to be a seminary that I have had some relations with. I know Dr. Christopher Cone's Father. Dr. Cone is the President of the school since 2006. Yes this is a small seminary. It is not as large as Dallas, Grace, Fuller, Southwest or other well known seminary. The issue isn't about whether he earned it. Which he did. The issue as to whether the school can give a degree. When it comes to religious education, who sets the standard for accreditation? It cannot be the state. We have a first amendment in America. The Supreme court of Texas ruled as such and returned the fine that the school paid.
The issue as to whether Thomas Ice's doctorate is recognized. As a professor at Liberty University, he is recognized as having a Ph.D. by the school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ice
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/index.cfm?PID=12360
I remember a debate a few years back over the degree that Dr. Kent Hovind earned from Patriot University(http://www.patriotuniversity.com/) in Colorado. This is another school that I have a relationship with. Same situation. The degree was earned. The question is to whether the degree is recognized. With no accreditation board, then the controversy is on. There seems to be a degree of attack on the degree when the attacks on the work fall short.
Should Christians quit earning degrees from such small schools. I don't think so. The accreditation process often causes schools to compromise on principals. It is the same thing about home schooling. When a student finishes a course of study in a home school situation, did he/she earn the credit and the degree. As long as the person did the work, he should be recognized as having the degree until it is proven that the school isn't giving a complete course.
When you see the catalog of the schools and see the work that must be completed to get a degree sometimes you find that it is harder to get your degree this method then by going to an accredited school. At an accredited school, the minimum standards are sometimes the only thing required. When you attend and unaccredited school, they realize that you must perform better then the accredited school or you will not be recognized by anyone. So as a result, their dissertation review can be more strict. Their standards for passing classes can be tougher. They cannot rely on their accreditation that keeps them in business. They have to put out a superior product.
If we are not allowed to study at an unaccredited school, then we are not allowed to do independent research. This blog encourages such. The Bible says that you are to "Workout your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil 2:12. It is ultimately your responsibility to determine the truth. Don't let someone say that you or someone else is a liar without first figuring out the source of it Much of it is disinformation to try to confuse you. The confusion is not of God. It is of Satan. So know your source and do your own research. 2 Tim 2:15. "Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "
[Hi Tim. Seen this? I found it on the web.]
ReplyDeleteCarl Sweatman, a PhD student in England, has penned an electrifying "tribute" to Bible prophecy specialist Thomas Ice that all Ice fans and others may enjoy reading. To read it Google "be careful in polemics - 26 December 2012."
thomas ice, bill salus hoho
ReplyDeleteBill salus thinks isaiah 17 has not been fulfilled. Thing is, is he a scholar or is this really pure fiction.
the bible says Isaiah 17 was fulfilled a long time ago
Isa 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Isa 17:2 The cities of Aroer are forsaken; they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
Isa 17:3 The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus; and the remnant of Aram shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts.
Isa 17:4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.
The very first word of the prophecy declares "Behold". This word "Behold" followed by the participle (and this participle is the key to the whole question), is only used when something is about to happen as the keil & delitsch commentary shows below:-
"Behold," etc.: hinn'h followed by a participle indicates here, as it does everywhere else, something very near at hand.
This is from email correspondence I had with Bill Salus. He says:-
"Richard according to the New King James Version the Bible uses the word "behold" 586 times. Prove to me how each one of these predicts an event that must happen in the prophets lifetime. Start with Ezekiel 37:12, and if you can't prove all of them, then our email conversation is over. We are entitled to our opinions and I respectfully disagree with yours.
Bill"
It's that participle, though, that Bill overlooks.
No-one is saying that every time the word "Behold" appears it means imminent action. Of course not. When "Behold" appears followed by the participle, however, then it does mean imminent action.
isaiah 17:1Behold (hinneh), Damascus (object of the participle) will cease to be (participle)
Note that the participle follows directly after its object (Damascus)
Isa 24:1 Behold(hinneh), the LORD will empty(participle) the earth (object of the participle)
Here the participle, though following behold, precedes the object.
Isa 19:1 An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold(hinneh), the LORD is riding on(participle) a swift cloud(object of the participle).
The oracle concerning Egypt was not directly imminent.
Some are puzzled by the "behold" in chapter 7 concerning the virgin and her conception being imminent. A lot has been written concerning this and I am not competent to discuss the technicalities of tenses in isaiah 7:14 (but I should point out that the multitude of scholars agree on the imminence of isaiah 17:1). Anyway, the virgin in question must have been well known in Ahaz' court and her being with child, Immanuel, was a sign to Ahaz. How could the birth of Christ 700 or more years later be a sign to Ahaz - he would have been long gone. A little common sense solves this as does:-
Isa 7:15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.
Samaria and Syria are lands of the two kings here. This happened 2 years after this prophecy before the lad was eating curds and honey. Another confirmation of isaiah 17 being fulfilled. The sign to Ahaz was not just the child but the associated time frame - that before the boy knew the difference between good and evil "the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted".