Eschatology: Survey says . . . !!!

[Fortigurn]

Which passages are you referring to?

How about Daniel 2, Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9, and Revelation 4-22?

I can list a boatload of preterist writings regarding the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70 week prophecy from the early church, but of course, you already knew that.

No, you can't cite a 'boatload of preterist writings regarding the Olivet Discourse' from 'the early church'. You can cite a lot of writings which show that the Early Fathers believed that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century, but not all. That is not the Praeterist position, that is the Historicist position. As for Daniel 9, yes most of the Early Fathers correctly understood it to have been fulfilled in the 1st century. Historicists agree with this. This does not mean that Historicists are Praeterists.

So in reality, the only interpretation of a Bible prophecy among the majority of the Early Fathers which agrees completely with Praeterism is their understanding of Daniel 9. That's it.

Therefore Preterism is anything but a 17th Century invention.

False. This would be true if Praeterism simply meant the belief that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century, or that Praeterism simpy meant the belief that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century. But that is not what Praeterism means. You have to show that Daniel 2, 7 and 9, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation were all understood to be Praeterist.

If you are refering to the Book of Revelation itself, then you are correct.

I most certainly am (and Daniel 7 and the Olivet Discourse). I'm also referring to 2 Thessalonians 2. The following Fathers believed that the 'man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians 2 would not come before the fall of the Roman empire:

* 180 Irenaeus

* 185 Tertullian

* 200 Hippolytus

* 300 Victorinus

* 306-373 Ephraem

* 315-386 Cyril

* 389 Chrysotom

* 340-397 Ambrose

* 340-420 Jerome

* 393-457 Theodoretus

* 438-533 Remigius

* 520 Andreas

* c. 550 Primasius

That's quite the list. Let's see your list of Fathers who believed that the 'man of sin' of 2 Thessalonians 2 had already come and gone in the 1st century.

However, there are very few writings on Revelation in the early church at all, and certainly no consensus on the millennium.

This is a little disingenuous. There are many writings on Revelation in the early church, though not many complete 'end to end' expositions. But there is plenty of material to identify the fact that the Early Fathers did not hold to a Praeterist view of Revelation. Not only that, but although there was no complete consensus on the millennium, the premillennial position was the majority view among the Early Fathers:

* 115 Papias

* 110-165 Justin Martyr

* 180 Irenaeus

* c.163 Aviricius Marcellus

* 185 Tertullian

* 194 (b.) Clement

* 200 Hippolytus

* 280 Methodius

* 280 Nepos

* 300 Victorinus

* 305 Commodianus

* 306 Lactantius

* c. 347 Cyril

* c. 350 Aphrahat

* 315-386 Cyprian

* 401 Severus

* 407 John Chrysostom

* c. 450 Theodoret

Let's see your list of postmillennial Fathers please.

But of course, the Early Fathers are only the start of the problem. You have to explain why no Christian expositor between the 7th century and the early 17th century arrived at the Praeterist interpretation. This, despite the fact that during that thousand years there were plenty of expositions written on Revelation. And how could it be that a whole century of Reformers (including Luther, Melancthon, Osiander, Illyricus, Oecolampadius, Joye, Knox, Bullinger, Conradus, Funck, Solis, Jewell, Ridly, Latimer, Tyndale, Nigrinus, Chytraeus, Aretius, Fulke, Marlorat, Brocard, and Foxe), could have missed this, despite producing careful expositions of Daniel 2, 7 and 9, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation?

This is the 'credibilty gap' which Praeterists of every stripe face. Honest Praeterists admit to it.

Even the preteristarchive, written by people who have combed through thousands of pages of exposition over the centuries in a vain attempt to find early Praeterism, have to admit the painful truth:

Today's contemporary "Partial Preterism" was primarily developed during the Reformation era in the hands of Calvin, Grotius and Hammond, though the Jesuit Alcazar is possibly the earliest to present a fully developed system.

That's your version of Praeterism, 'Partial Praeterism'. No respectable Praeterist claims that this interpretation predated this era. Ironic, is it not, for a Puritan to adopt the interpretation invented by a Jesuit during the Counter-Reformation with the aim of exculpating the Roman Catholic Church?

But as I have shown on a number of occasions, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are one and the same prophecy.

And as I have shown on the occasion when I debated this with you (until you didn't reply any more), they are not.

Therefore, if a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is valid, as you have admitted...

I have not said any such thing.

I have also shown good evidence that the Beast was Nero. We can open that one again if you like.

Go right ahead. But first explain how it was that this understanding was completely missed by the Early Fathers. I've already addressed this, remember:

Although some of the Early Fathers considered that the little horn, the man of sin or the beast of Revelation 13 to be Nero, they did not consider that the Nero of the 1st century was the fulfillment of these passages.

On the contrary, they believed that it would be a resurrected Nero of the future who would return from the grave to carry out the role of AntiChrist, fulfilling these prophecies some time after the 1st century. This view is entirely contradictory to the Praeterist view, and is believed by no Praeterist today.

Details here.

The rest of your post is full of straw man arguments, mostly dealing with full preterism, which I also reject as a heresy.

The rest of my post is directed towards Praeterism generally, which is why it is not a straw man. I did not direct the post specifically at your version of Praterism. But my first three points are major challenges to your particular version.

[puritan lad]

The rest of my post is directed towards Praeterism generally, which is why it is not a straw man. I did not direct the post specifically at your version of Praterism. But my first three points are major challenges to your particular version.

First, I don't consider extrabiblical sources to be a challenge to my position, especially in the area of so little consensus as early church eschatology. Obviously, it will take some time pull up the church father quotes (I have a bunch somewhere), In any case, it is irrelevant. I noticed that you use very little Scripture in your quotes. As Jac noted a while back in his "imminence" argument, almost all of the church fathers expect Christ to return in their lifetimes. Guess what? That were all wrong. What more needs to be said about this than that?

In any case, I'll indulge a few here.

Eusebius, Augustine, Athanasius, and Chrysondom all consider 70 AD to be the fulfillment of "The Great Tribulation", though I would disagree slightly. Quotes will be available if needed.

As far as Daniel 9, we have Christ's words himself that the fulfillment was in 70 AD (Matthew 24:15-21, cf. Luke 21:20-24), but I'll search it out. since you obviously need more than that.

As far as your statement that the majority of early church fathers were premillennialists, that's a mere assumption. Even Justin Martyr, an early premillennialist, would disagree with you.

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 years), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Letter to Trypho)

This quote was from very early on. If there were many who denied the millennium then, surely that number didn't decrease in the next few decades.

[Fortigurn]

First, I don't consider extrabiblical sources to be a challenge to my position, especially in the area of so little consensus as early church eschatology.

Since the issue at hand is extra-Biblical Christian interpretations of prophecy, then extra-Biblical sources are most certainly a challenge to your position when they don't support your position. As for 'so little consensus' among 'early church eschatology', you're quite wrong. There's plenty more agreement there than you're letting on.

Looking at the Early Church expositions of the following passages, we find significant agreement:

* Daniel 2: here and here

* Daniel 7: here, here, here, here and here

* Daniel 8: here, here, and here

* Daniel 9: here

* The Olivet Discourse: here, here, and here

* 2 Thessalonians 2: here, here, and here

* Revelation: here

Obviously, it will take some time pull up the church father quotes (I have a bunch somewhere), In any case, it is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant.

I noticed that you use very little Scripture in your quotes.

At this point we're not discussing the interpretation of prophecy itself, we're discussing whether or not the Early Fathers held the Praeterist interpretation. To settle that question we go to the writings of the Early Fathers, not to Scripture.

As Jac noted a while back in his "imminence" argument, almost all of the church fathers expect Christ to return in their lifetimes. Guess what? That were all wrong. What more needs to be said about this than that?

It means they were wrong about Christ returning in their lifetime. So what?

Eusebius, Augustine, Athanasius, and Chrysondom all consider 70 AD to be the fulfillment of "The Great Tribulation", though I would disagree slightly. Quotes will be available if needed.

I personally agree with this. But this is not Praeterism. They did not believe that the entire prophecy, including the return of Christ, and the judgment, had been fulfilled in the 1st century (see here).

As far as Daniel 9, we have Christ's words himself that the fulfillment was in 70 AD (Matthew 24:15-21, cf. Luke 21:20-24), but I'll search it out. since you obviously need more than that.

If you had read my post, you would see that I agree that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in 70 AD.

As far as your statement that the majority of early church fathers were premillennialists, that's a mere assumption. Even Justin Martyr, an early premillennialist, would disagree with you.

It is not an assumption. I gave you a list of Early Fathers who were premillennialists. I have yet to see your list of Early Fathers who were postmillennialists. I don't believe you could make a list even as long as the list of premillennialists I gave you.

The quote you provided from Martyr does not speak of any of the Early Fathers. It speaks of unnamed and unumbered Christians. The issue at hand is what the Early Fathers believed, and Martyr cannot provide us with that information, since he only lived near the beginning of the age of the Early Fathers, an age which runs from the late 1st century to the late 5th century.

If, as you imply, the number of Christians denying the millennium was the same (or increased), after Martyr's time, then why is it that so many of the Early Fathers were premillennial? Where are all the writings of the postmillennial Early Fathers?

[puritan lad]

Since the issue at hand is extra-Biblical Christian interpretations of prophecy, then extra-Biblical sources are most certainly a challenge to your position when they don't support your position.

Actually, this is an issue that you have made. The issus is the Biblical interpretation of prophecy. I don't need a church father to verify what Jesus has already said. He said that the Olivet Discourse would be fulfulled within the Apostle's generation. Who else would we have to listen to?

But since you brought it up, doesn't historicism teach that the seven churches represent seven "spiritual ages" in church history. In fact, I believe that this is the foundation on which historicism stands. Do you have any early church fathers who interpreted them as such? It surely cannot be gleaned from the scripture passages themselves. (In fact, historicists usually have to twist historical facts ,like Pope's titles, in order to make the prophecies fit.)

Doesn't historicism teach that the Beast is the Papacy? I admit that I'm not as well-studied on Historicism as I am in classic dispensationalism. Do you have any early church fathers who taught this? Doubtful.

I can see tons of futurism in the early church, but I can't seem to find any historicism. Perhaps you could point me to some. Spend a little time defending your view in light of church history while I do my research, since you obviously can't defend it from sola scriptura.

It means they were wrong about Christ returning in their lifetime. So what?

It means that their interpretation of prophecy was wrong in at least one area. If they disagree with scripture, then I'll go with Scripture. Many early church fathers contradicted themselves in some areas. If the only argument you have in extra-biblical, then your view is already on shaky ground, even if you can find a consensus, which again is doubtful.

It is not an assumption. I gave you a list of Early Fathers who were premillennialists. I have yet to see your list of Early Fathers who were postmillennialists. I don't believe you could make a list even as long as the list of premillennialists I gave you.

The quote you provided from Martyr does not speak of any of the Early Fathers. It speaks of unnamed and unumbered Christians. The issue at hand is what the Early Fathers believed, and Martyr cannot provide us with that information, since he only lived near the beginning of the age of the Early Fathers, an age which runs from the late 1st century to the late 5th century.

So what? As I said, I'll do my research, as I know that there are some church fathers who denied a millennium. If a literal millennium were as prevalent as you suggest, then why is it absent in ALL of the Creeds and Confessions of the church?

[Jac3510]

That is what you aren't getting. Let's use Gen 15:18-20 as an example. God promised Abraham that He would give a specific portion of land to his descendents. He even gave the boundaries. Now, the Jews have NEVER possessed that land. So you have to allegorize the text and say it refers to the future inheritance of heaven by the Church, or whatever you want to do with it.

Actually I look to passages such as :
Gen 6:6-8 Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.'"

Joshua 21:45 Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.
Joshua 23:14 "Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.

Acts 7:17 "As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased

….and I come to the conclusion that God says that He has fulfilled His promise to Abraham. You say that “Jews have NEVER possessed that land” and God says He fulfilled His promise to Abraham….so, (as you seem to be so fond of saying) it would seem that it is you who are calling God a liar.

ttoews . . . I already had this discussion on this passage with PL in which I showed that he believes in an errant Bible if he wants to continue with this interpretation. Despite two requests for clarification, he never commented, so maybe you can pick up his slack?

Here's a copy/paste of the relevant part of that post:

--------------------
If there is any further question . . . here is a map of the land Joshua conquered, as provided by the Bible Atlas Online (note: due to size, I cropped and edited the picture).


(Here is the link to another map that shows the conquest of Canaan.

Now, Gen. 15:18-20 says that the Promised Land begins at the Nile and goes all the way to the Euphrates. It is very obvious that Joshua did not, in fact, conquer all of those lands. You'd have better luck arguing that the promises were fulfilled in Solomon's day. It is probably better to take these passages you have referenced as a fulfillment of the land promises in Numbers 34.

Besides all of this, even if it were true that the land had been completel possessed, which we see is not the case, it would not matter because Gen. 17:8 says the land will be an "everlasting possession." The fact that they were exiled proves that the land still must be restored. It is here that you are required to allegorize the texts into spiritual land, but that is simply not taking God to mean what He says.
--------------------------------------

This a really simple thing, ttoews. The promises to the forefathers were not those to Abraham. They were those to the first generation brought out of Exodus that died because of their unbelief. All those promises WERE fulfilled.

So, look AGAIN: Gen 15 gives a list of the land they were to possess and were to possess FOREVER. They have NEVER possessed that land, much less possessed it FOREVER. There are only three possibilities then:

1. God was wrong / we have an errant Bible
2. God never intended on giving Israel the land promised in Gen 15, but instead had some spiritualized concept in mind,
3. God will make good on His promise in the future.

I take 3, because I TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY. You take 2. You spiritualize the text. Therefore, Abraham was INCAPABLE of understanding the promise of God. Let's push it just a little further, ttoews:

Suppose I buy a car from you. You draw up a contract that says I owe you $200 a month for 24 months with a downpayment of $1000, no interest. I agree. I hand you the $1000 and walk away with keys in hand. The next month, I don't pay. Nor the next. Nor the next. Nor the next. You call to repossess the car, we go to court, and I say this to the judge:

"Well, you see Judge, I AM fulfilling my obligation. ttoews and I agreed that I would pay $200 a month for the car. That is what I am doing. Of couse, I didn't REALLY mean two hundred LITERAL dollars. I actually was referring to the time I would spend in prayer for him. I charge $50 an hour for prayer, so I pray for him one hour a week." That obviously wouldn't fly. You can't spiritualize a promise like that. It would be DISHONEST of me to try to make an argument. In the sam way, it would be DISHONEST of God to make a promise to Abraham knowing full well He would never fulfill it as He stated it. It renders the promise unintelligible.

So no, ttoews, I don't consider God a liar. I believe He is telling the complete and total truth. Do you?

You say unintelligible, I say we are limited in our ability to understand scripture w/o further revelation and/or without guidance from the Holy Spirit. This is why you will see Christ, starting with Moses and all the Prophets, explain to a couple of disciples what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. The book of Ezekiel is the same. The book wasn't unintelligible nonsense to the Jews, but unless God explained to them that they would not be offering sacrifices for their atonement for all of eternity at a Temple, then that is likely what they would have understood the book to be saying….and if you are a standard dispensationalist, then you don't believe that the Jews would be offering sacrifices for their atonement for all of eternity at a Temple….and so your hermeneutic forces you to believe that Scripture was, or is, misunderstood until future revelation takes place.

There is a difference in a wrong interpretation and an interpretation that CANNOT be reached. Show me ONE passage in the OT that cannot be understood without NT revelation. The NT may further clarify and OT prophecy, but they never change the foundations already laid. They always add more detail.

Let's use Gen 15 again. God promised the Jews a SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND. Can you blame them for thinking they would get it? You say, "Well, they just didn't understand that God was promising them that land in a spiritual sense. That's why God told them that part two thousand years later." So, it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to properly understand the promise. That makes Scripture unintelligible.

Let's take a NT promise. Rom 8:28 tells me that God will cause all things to work for my good. But who knows? Maybe God doesn't mean that. Maybe there is some other way of looking at that He hasn't told me about that He will later on, hmm? Maybe by "for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose," He is actually referring to some group we don't know anything about yet because He hasn't told us about them. Now, in two thouand years, when we are gone, that group will laugh at us for thinking we could claim that promise. But new revelation will clearly tell them that God REALLY was referring to them, not to us.

In the end, that is what you are saying God did to the Jews. Silly Jews. They thought the promises were to them . . .

And btw, I do, as of today, believe in future sacrifices for atonement in a Third Jewish Temple because that is what Ezekiel 40-48 says will happen. You have simply misunderstood Hebrews 10. That is why the OT has to control your understanding of the NT, because you come up with the wrong understanding of the NT without the OT.

Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?

for a fuller understanding they would have to rely on God to explain it….same as us.

Wait, wait, wait - so look at what you said. The Jews had to WAIT ON FURTHER REVELATION before they could understand what God meant?!?!? So . . . Scripture was, to them at that time, unintelligible. They didn't have enough information to interpret it properly.

You should REALLY rethink your hermeneutic, ttoews.

Were they capable of understanding what God really meant when He spoke through the prophets? Yes or no, ttoews?

No, the gospels clearly state that the disciples had a difficult time understanding the prophecies (even after further clarification from Christ).

I didn't ask if it was difficult or easy. I asked if it was POSSIBLE. If it was impossible, then it is NOT THEIR FAULT that they missed their Messiah. You and PL want to tell me that the reason they missed the Messiah was that they misinterpreted the prophecies. But then you are going to tell me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to come to the correct interpretation?

Let's use another example. You take a class on world history. The teacher lectures you on the history of Rome. He then hands you an exam and asks you when it was founded. You say, as according to the lecture, it was founded in April 21, 753 B.C. He hands back your paper and marks it wrong. In fact, ALL the answers are marked wrong. You ask why. Wasn't Rome founded in 753 BC? He says yes . . . but he wasn't talking about that Rome. He was talking about Rome, Georgia, which was founded in the mid 1800's immediately following the Trail fo Tears. He tells you that you will talk about that in the next lecture.

Of course, you would be peaved. The test question was unintelligible. You were incapable of giving the correct answer because you were incapable of understanding what the professor was asking. And you want me to believe that is what God did to the Jews? What is to say He isn't doing that to us?

you are wrong here….there are a number of views with a multi-rapture understanding….but that isn't what I was talking about. In standard dispensationalism I believe that Jesus comes at a pre-trib rapture, at post-trib to defeat the beast and at post-mill at the head of an army of angels from heaven. Right?

Wrong. Very, very, very wrong. The only "multi-rapture" view relates to those who believe in a partial rapture. It's never been seriously considered among dispensationalists broadly. But beyond that, you are just flat wrong that "Jesus comes at a pre-trib rapture, at post-trib to defeat the beast and at post-mill at the head of an army of angels from heaven."

Actually, Jesus "comes" at a pre-trib rapture. The Second Coming is at the end of the Tribluation, which is when he heads an army of angels and saints from heaven. There is no post-mill coming. None. It is true that at the end of the millennium, there will be an uprising, but Jesus will put an end to taht by inaugurating the Great White Throne Judgment and the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth. But there is no "coming." Jesus will be here, on earth, for that.

OK. Give me the passage that tells me that the Second Coming isn't a mystery. In 1 Cor Paul explains a mystery just like in other letters he explains the mystery of the gospel and the mystery of God, namely Christ. So then, how does Paul's reference to a mystery in 1 Cor 15:51 eliminate the possibility of the rapture being part of the Second Coming? Your math example is akin to saying, “It is a mystery to me as to what present is under the tree for me, but the Christmas celebration isn't a mystery, so the present can't be part of the Christmas celebration.

I could list dozens and dozens, but I suppose that one that first jumps to mind is Zech 14:4-5:

• On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

This is a reference to the Second Coming (it obviously isn't the First Coming!). By definition, the, the Second Coming is not a mystery because the manner in which the Messiah would come is plainly stated in the OLD TESTAMENT.

This was understood by the New Testament Saints. In Acts 1:9-11, Jesus has just ascended at the Christians at the scene are told:

• After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

So, the Second Coming is not a mystery. Paul says the rapture IS (or, prior to his revelation, it WAS) a mystery. Therefore, the two events CANNOT be the same thing.

I am assuming, by the way, that you know that the word "mystery" means "a fact not previously revealed," right? It isn't something confusing or something hard to understand.

I am assuming that you know that the Revelation was written well after the epistles to the Corinthians.

I am assuming that you know that the Revelation was inspired by the same Author who inspired the epistles to the Corinthians

And that has what to do with anything? Do you think when Paul wrote the words "last trump" he knew there would be seven trumps? And for the record, if you want to insist that the last trump in Corinthians must refer to the last trump in the Revelation, you are aware that the last trump in the Revelation is NOT the end of the tribulation period, right? The last trump signals the BEGINNING of the bowl judgments. See Revelation 11:15. No matter how you cut it, this AGAIN proves the rapture to be a seperate event from the Second Coming, because Jesus does not come back when the last trump is blown, as per the Revelation. So, since God had the last trump from Revelatio in mind when He inspired Paul to say the Rapture happens at the last trump, and sense the last trump happens before the seven bowl judgments, then you believe in a future mid-tribulational rapture, right?

It is impossible, then, for Paul to be referring to an event THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN REVEALED.

not possible in a plain reading …last means last

So when Jesus says He will raise us up on the Last Day, He was wrong (John 6:40)? I mean, since 1 Cor says that the dead will be raised at the last trump, and the last trump is the seventh trump of the Revelation, but there are still a lot of days left after that event, then clearly Jesus was wrong. He won't raise us on the LAST day. He will raise us on a day pretty close to the last day. Right?

Or, another possibility is that "last" has a range of meanings like . . . say . . . yom? All of which are literal?

it would seem to me that the same Author would know of the last/final trumpet at the time he inspired both books…and last should mean last….unless, (as you are fond of saying) you are calling God a liar.

See above. I think I'm the only one in this thread who belives God is telling the truth so far.

just b/c one doesn't have a full understanding, it doesn't follow the limited understanding means nothing….eventually, as Paul explains, we will see clearly, and in the mean time we labour with what we have

I already addressed this above . . . Rome/Rome.

I didn't…what I am saying is that dispensationalists are not nearly as literal as they think they are.

There have been some interpretations from the dispensationalist camp where they have allegorized. They are wrong in doing so. But dispensationalism, as a system, says we take the Bible literally. I do that. If I don't take something literally--if I spiritulize it--then point it out and I will revise my understanding.

Until then, I hold to my original argument. Dispensatonalism is the ONLY method of interpretation that takes the text to mean what it says, and that, of course, in its historical, literary, and grammatical contexts. You don't do that. You spiritualize texts precisely because your system creates contradictions in the Bible (i.e., Gen 15).

Here's a suggestion for you. If your system creates contradictions, rather than saying one passage doesn't really mean what it says and changing the meaning, try letting Scripture decide what you believe and let IT inform your theology. That's something we all should do. I am constantly finding places that my theology had me informing Scripture. We have to submit our thinking to the Bible, my friend. Not the other way around.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Sorry, Jac, but there is no more sacrifice for those who reject Christ, animal or otherwise. For those who are His, however, there need be no more atonement. “It is Finished” (John 19:30). What you suggest will happen is impossible (Hebrews 10:4).

Like i told ttoews, I believe you have misunderstood Hebrews. Open a thread in the Theology forum if you want to discuss it.

And I do not recognize that “that a literal hermeneutic invariably leads to dispensational premillennialism.” What I recognize in dispensational Premillennialism is selective literalism, as you show below. Prophecies are only “literal” when they can be fit into your preconceived scheme. Otherwise, they are allegorical.

I'll need examples of this. The ones you offer below don't cut it. Let me show why.

Your plain “literal” meaning of the time frame references are completely ignored.

Such as?

Christ “coming in His kingdom” must always refer to the Second Advent, except in Matthew 16:27-28, where the time frame reference cannot be explained away as easily.

I have already dealt with this in one of our past discussions. I said:

• Yes, it is a common argument, and it is the correct argument. As to your question, no dispensationalist believes "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is a technical term for the Second Advent. Context dictates all. Matt. 24 is an eschatological chapter, so we take those passages that way. The preterist explanation on that is lacking, as I've already addressed . . . I pointed out, what, sixteen or so problems in the Olivet Discourse thread? As for Matt. 16, contextually, there is no doubt that Jesus was talking about His transfiguration.

I didn't get a response to this. Again, "coming in His kingdom" is NOT a technical term for "the Second Coming." No one says it is. If the contexts plainly shows it is the case, as it plainly does in Matthew 24, then that is the way we take it. If it refers to the transfiguration, as it plainly does in Matthew 16, then it is taken that way. But the argument you present itself ("Dispensationalists insist 'coming in His kingdom' is a reference to the Second Coming except when it suits them") is based on a faulty premise. It is NOT a technical term for anything.

Old Testament prophecies are to be taken “literally”, while the New Testament claims of fulfillment must either be ignored, or shown as only a type of fulfillment (with no grounds whatsoever).

Examples?

How is this done? No problem. Just invent some mysterious 2,000 year gaps out of thin air and stick them into the O.T. and it works perfectly, at least until someone asks why you do that. Therefore, 70 weeks becomes 69 weeks plus whatever amount of time you wish to add on to it.

So your ENTIRE argument that dispensationalists don't take the Bible literally is because you can't see where the gap between the 69th and 70th week are? Let me help you see where it comes from. I'll offer three examples that even YOU have to agree with:

• Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.

This is Zech 9:9-10. Verse 9 ("Rejoice . . . donkey") was fulfilled at the Triumphal Entry. Verse 10 won't be fulfilled until the Second Coming. Even if you say this is BEING fulfilled in the Church Age, you STILL have a gap, because His rule does not yet extend from sea to sea. So we have at least a two thousand year gap here. So where do YOU get your gap, PL?

• The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion—to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.

This is Isaiah 61:1-3. Now Jesus said this was fulfilled in His first coming in Luke 4:18-19. But notice that Jesus stopped reading at "the Lord's favor." He didn't read about the vengeance of God and everything that follows. Why? Because those things will not be fulfilled until the Second Coming. Or, if we take the Preterist view,the vengence of God was fulfilled in AD 70. So . . . where did the 40 year gap come from?

• At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

This is Daniel 11:40-12:2. I suspect you hold the traditional preterist view of 11:40-45 and believe these refer to Herod the Great and co. But notice 12:1, which says "At that time . . ." There is then a discussion of great distress for "your people" (the Jews). But then we have a reference to the Resurrection. Now . . . the Resurrection hasn't happened yet. So if Daniel 11:40-45 were fulfilled with Herod the Great, and 12:1 was fulfilled in 70 AD, then we have 12:2 . . . a two thousand year PLUS gap!!!

The simple fact is that there is nothing at all non-literal about seeing that there are gaps in biblical prophecy. Everyone from every school recognizes these facts.

In defense of this, dispensationalists often ask, "how would the Judaist readers have understood the OT prophecies?" It's an amazing question coming from a Christian. The correct answer is, "who cares?" They missed it. They were wrong in every prophecy concerning the Messiah. Why would we grant them any knowledge in the rest of the promises? They reject the New Testament. The trouble here is that, for all intensive purposes, so does your interpretative method.

You are mistaken here. I can't speak for all dispensationalists, but I can tell you that, as I understand it, I have absolutely no interest in how Judaists would have taken the prophecies. I am interested in how they are to be properly understood in their contexts. In other words, how SHOULD the Judaists have understood their prophecies?

I already asked you this once, so I'll ask you again: How should the Judaists have interpreted their prophecies if they were not given enough information to properly interpret them? Put differently, if the OT propehcies have to be spiritualized in light of Jesus' apparent changes to "literal" fulfillment, then, in absense of Jesus, how SHOULD they have interpreted them?

Also, dispensationalism make the original audience irrelevant to the prophecy, ie. Jesus threatens to cast the First Century church of Thyatira into the great tribulation (Rev. 2:22), even though all of its members will be dead 2,000 years before the great tribulation begins.

Concerning Thyatira, I see no reference in 2:22, NASB/KJV says that they will be thrown into "great tribulation" if they don't repent. And that was totally true. But there is no exegetical reason that this has to refer to the specific events in the rest of the book. In fact, the phrase "great tribulation" only occurs one more time in the book (7:14), and there with the article. Even further, the ones in Rev 7 are the saints who came OUT OF the Great Tribulation. The Church at Thyatira was threatened to be thrown into it because of their toleration of sin. I don't see any necessary connection.

The point is that your argument is that dispensationalism makes 2:22 irrelevent to Thyatira. Whether you agree or disagree with my understanding, the verse is far from irrelevent. Jesus told them something very important. If they did not repent, they would suffer intensely, to use the NIV's rendering. So that argument is moot. Regardless of all that, in no way does it mean that they will be thrown INTO the great tribulation spoken of by dispensationalists. You should know better than that.

In Dispensationalism, it is always the current generation that will see the end (after all, we saw 1948). It is we who are so important that we must be living at the climax of history. Those who Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Ezekiel were actually speaking to are merely an afterthought.

There are sensationalists who take that view, but I've REPEATEDLY refuted it. "This generation" in Matthew 24--in fact, in ALL of Matthew--is not referring to the apostolic generation nor to "the Jews" as a race. It is referring to wicked and evil people. "This generation" has been with us sense Cain, and they will be with us until the Millennial Kingdom ends. THAT is a literal understanding of the word. Remember, words and phrases have literal ranges of meanings. It's like I told ttoews - consider the word YOM.

There are “literally” way too many inconsistencies for me to even list.

How about a few so we could discuss them?

For the postmillennialist, we have no problem with the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-47, as long as you leave it in the Second Century B.C., where it belongs. When you claim a return to animal sacrifices, circumcision, temple worship, and other "weak and beggarly elements" after Christ's finished work, it begins to become a mockery of Christ. In the OT, those things pointed to Christ, not vice versa. From and eschatological standpoint, this is the most ridiculous part of Dispensationalism.

Like I said, open a thread in the theology forum if you want to talk about the doctrine of the atonement in the Millennial Kingdom.

BTW, you didn't answer my question regarding circumcision of the flesh (Ezekiel 44:7-9).

Yes I did. I said I take the passage literally.

As for your questions in the next post:

• I believe that the weapons in Ezekiel are literally what they say they are. Do you?

I believe Ezekiel was describing literal weapons and literal warfare with the best terminology he had available to him. If your greatest argument against dispensationalism is that Ezekiel didn't say "tank," then well . . . good for you. But to answer your question, yes, I do.

• I believe that the Great Tribulation literally happened within the Apostle's generation, just like Jesus said it would. Do you?

Jesus never said it would happen in the Apostle's generation. Show me where He did.

• I believe that the man of lawlessness was already at work in the First Century, just like Paul said. Do you?

Paul does not say the man of lawlessness was already at work in the first century. Paul says " the secret power of lawlessness" is "already at work." Words are important, PL.

• I believe that John wrote the Book of Revelation to seven literal first century churches in Asia, about things that were to happen "shortly", were "near", and were "about to come upon the land". Do you?

Are you referring to passages like Rev 22:20, which the NIV renders, "Yes, I am coming soon."? Of course, that is literally rendered "I am coming quickly." That doesn't mean it had to happen quickly after the letter was written. It can just as easily mean that when He comes, He will come quickly, which is how I take it. Perfectly literal. I couldn't see a reference to "about to come upon the land" in Revelation. Did you mean Isaiah 3? That's hardly the Revelation . . . anyway, how about some specific verses to talk about?

• I believe that Daniel's 70 week prophecy was fulfilled literally in the time in which he said it would be. Do you?

Yup.

As a postmillennialist, I believe that God did exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He says He did it in the New Testament, and exactly WHEN He said He would do it."

No. You don't believe that God will give Israel the land He promised them in Gen 15. You don't believe He will give them a land FOREVER like He promised them in Gen 17. You spiritualize OT prophecy because you DON'T believe God will do what He said He will do. And as far as your "when" argument goes, you believe He did certain things within certain time references that are simply your interpretation, and a wrong interpretation in my opinion. "This generation" is a literary device when, taken literally, refers to evil people. "Quickly" in Revelation refers to the way in which Jesus will return.

So again, I hope your arguments against dispensationalism are better than this. Out of this whole discussion, the only thing you've brought up worth any merit is the discussion on Hebrews 10. Like I said, that would be a good topic of debate. Other than that, I've not seen anything worth really getting concerned over, and certainly nothing worthy of the charge that dispensationalists don't take the Bible literally. At least I don't believe the Bible has errors as you do in Genesis 15 vs Joshua 21.

Hmmm . . .

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac, Just a few items.

First, There are no 2,000 year gaps in the propehcies you mentioned, unless you assume premillennialism. So you are correct. I just can't see this 2,000 year gap. (Of course, I don't feel too bad. Apparently Daniel didn't see it either, so I'm in pretty good company. It's a good thing Darby and Scofield came along to set us straight, eh?)

Second, your "literal hermeneutic” is merely an invention of premillennialists to allow them to accuse postmills of not taking prophecy literally. Your previous quote concerning this speaks volumes.

"Every dispensationalist to ever explain and defend what a "literal" hermeneutic says the EXACT same thing regarding this type of question. "Literal" does not mean that we do not recognize figures. It means that we do not allegorize or spiritualize a text. They did not have tanks and planes in the OT. You cannot expect Ezekiel to use that terminology. If that is your greatest argument against dispensationalism, then your clinging to post-millennialism appears desperate at best."

So your camp gets to "explain and defend what a "literal" hermeneutic" is, and then accuse us of not being literal. How convenient. According to your view, Matthew 25:31 must be literal, but Matthew 16:27-28 can be allegory, even though they virtually say the exact same thing. It helps to be the one camp who gets to define what "literal" is.

I have already shown many examples of how you do not take time frame references literally, and I feel no need to do it again. If you can't see that, then you are blinded by your "literal hermeneutic”.

As for Ezekiel's war, I see no reason to make "horses" become "tanks", or "spears" become "scud missiles". If you think such interpretations support your "literal hermeneutic”, have at it. As for me, I'll take them literally. (And if you think they "don't cut it", that's OK.) I'll let the reader decide.

[Jac3510]

And you want to talk to me about a lack of substance?

There are no 2,000 year gaps in the propehcies you mentioned

Really? So in Zech. 9, when Jesus fulfilled the first part in the Triumphal Entry, He fulfilled the second part, too? "I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth."? Does His rule exist from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth? If not, I have to assume a gap . . .

And what about Daniel 12? So 11:45-21:1 were fulfilled in 70 AD. If there is no 2000 year gap, then when was the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, PL??? I REALLY want an answer to that.

And, out of curiosity, what is the difference in a 40 year gap and a 2000 year gap? I mean, I ASSUME for you that the day of vengence in Is 61 referrs to AD 70 (everything does, apparently). So if Jesus fulfilled the first part in AD 30 but the second part in AD 40, where did those 40 come from? Is a gap not a gap? Answer please???

Second, your "literal hermeneutic” is merely an invention of premillennialists to allow them to accuse postmills of not taking prophecy literally. Your previous quote concerning this speaks volumes.

So then tell me you don't believe we have to take the Bible literally as I define it. Why try to tell me you do? Say to me, "Jac, I take the Bible literally. I just don't define 'literal' the way you do."

Now, in fact, my charge against you is not that you don't take the Bible "literally." I charge that you, and the entire system of preterism, believe that God will NOT do WHAT HE said He WILL do. You asked me a series of questions, ALL OF WHICH I ANSWERED, so let me ask you this:

Do you believe that God will give "as an everlasting possession" to Abraham and his decendents the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites"? (Gen 17:8; 15:18-20)

As far as the rest of your post goes, I've made it very clear to you and our readers that I am willing to answer any question you give to me. You are really good at posting lists of verses. So give me a list of verses where I don't take time references literally. If you can't, then I'll take that as a concession to my argument, as will just about everybody else, I think. We all know--mod's, some help here!--that if you make an assertion it is your job to back it up with fact. I am more than willing to allow you to prove your assertion, but just because you do so doesn't make it true. So . . . evidence, please?

And as for tanks, scuds, swords, and spears, if really want to believe that the words "tank" and "scud missile" have to be in the Bible . . . well . . . all I can say is

Not to be disrespectful, but that's about as retarded as Hal's argument's that Jesus had to return in '88.

Now, would you PLEASE lay off the assertion/proof text/no exegesis/avoid exegesis in reply/mock scheme you continually use? Take a lesson from ttoews there. He is interacting with my arguments.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Really? So in Zech. 9, when Jesus fulfilled the first part in the Triumphal Entry, He fulfilled the second part, too? "I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth."? Does His rule exist from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth? If not, I have to assume a gap . . .

No gap. He established His Kingdom at His First Advent. It will grow, like the stone in Daniel 2, line the leaven in Matthew 13, until it fills the whole earth. That is the postmillennial hope. His Kingdom does rule from sea to sea, and the kings in Daniel found out. He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. Then the end comes.

Of course, the biggest difference between this prophecy and Daniel's is that Daniel gave a specific time reference, which is totally meaningless with your self-invented gap.

And what about Daniel 12? So 11:45-21:1 were fulfilled in 70 AD?

Yes.

If there is no 2000 year gap, then when was the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, PL??? I REALLY want an answer to that.

Daniel's resurrection in 12:2 was spiritual, as I will expound upon on my blog within the next few weeks. (I guess you want to place a 1,000 year gap in there as well.)

And, out of curiosity, what is the difference in a 40 year gap and a 2000 year gap? I mean, I ASSUME for you that the day of vengence in Is 61 referrs to AD 70 (everything does, apparently). So if Jesus fulfilled the first part in AD 30 but the second part in AD 40, where did those 40 come from? Is a gap not a gap? Answer please???

What 40 year gap? I don't have one. Jesus proclaimed the days in vengeance in 30 AD (Luke 21:22).

So then tell me you don't believe we have to take the Bible literally as I define it.

You are right Jac. I guess I don't take the Bible literally “as you define it”. As I said earlier, it must be nice to be the one camp that gets to define what literal is. But everyone can see how selective your literal interpretation really is. Too much of your "literal interpretation" is anything but literal.

[Jac3510]

No gap. He established His Kingdom at His First Advent. It will grow, like the stone in Daniel 2, line the leaven in Matthew 13, until it fills the whole earth. That is the postmillennial hope. His Kingdom does rule from sea to sea, and the kings in Daniel found out. He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. Then the end comes.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either Christ ALREADY rules the whole world and thus the Kingdom HAS GROWN, or the kingdom is GROWING until Christ's rule is established over the whole world.

If you say He already rules, then I will agree there is no gap in your view. In that case, you can't say the Kingdom will grow as per Matt 13. If you say the Kingdom will grow as per Matt 13, then, yes, you do have a gap.

Daniel's resurrection in 12:2 was spiritual, as I will expound upon on my blog within the next few weeks. (I guess you want to place a 1,000 year gap in there as well.)

Well, I certainly appreciate that. That's amazing. I know what I'm preaching on this Sunday. It will be hysterical to see the look on my congregation's face when I tell them that non-dispensationalists are forced to say Daniel 12:2 refers is a non-literal, spiritual event. That's just beautiful. Thanks. Seriously.

What 40 year gap? I don't have one.

I typoed. Let me show you again:

In 30 AD, Jesus fulfilled the first part (the year of favor). In 70 AD, He fulfilled the second part (the year of vengence). 70-30=40.

Where did the 40 year gap come from?

You are right Jac. I guess I don't take the Bible literally “as you define it”. As I said earlier, it must be nice to be the one camp that gets to define what literal is. But everyone can see how selective your literal interpretation really is. Too much of your "literal interpretation" is anything but literal.

Great. So how about you answer the charge that I DID lay down: you don't believe God will do what God said He would do and answer my question about the land promise in Gen 15 and 17? Here it is again, in case your forgot:

Do you believe that God will give "as an everlasting possession" to Abraham and his decendents the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites"? (Gen 17:8; 15:18-20)

[puritan lad]

So give me a list of verses where I don't take time references literally.

Matthew 10:23 — “You (my disciples) shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

Matthew 16:28 — “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Romans 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand."

1 Corianthians 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away."

1 Corinthians 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have come."

Philippians 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."

James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand. ... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."

1 Peter 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."

1 John 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that it is the last hour."

That'll be a good start, but there are many more. I realize that you have tried to explain away a few of these, like trying to tie Christ “coming in His Kingdom” to the Transfiguration. I guess that is literal the way you define it.

[puritan lad]

Do you believe that God will give "as an everlasting possession" to Abraham and his decendents the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites"? (Gen 17:8; 15:18-20)

I believe that he already did.

"And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (Check this out) But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you." (Joshua 23:14-16)

[Jac3510]

Nothing difficult there. You know the classical disensationalist responses to each one of these, so it isn't like you believe we don't have an answer. It is that you believe that answer isn't good enough. Which is fine by me. So I tell you what. I'll post the stock answers for those (in the meantime, readers are invited to consult such works as The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a very concise two volume dispensational commentary on the whole Bible) you when you . . . "lay off the assertion/proof text/no exegesis/avoid exegesis in reply/mock scheme you continually use?"

It's amazing that you just KEEP ON running exactly through that exact same order. It's like a checklist. Now, I asked:

1) About the growth vs establishment of the Kingdom (Zech 9),
2) About the forty year gap (Is 61)

edit: Ah, good, you got around to the land question:

Do you believe that God will give "as an everlasting possession" to Abraham and his decendents the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites"? (Gen 17:8; 15:18-20)

I believe that he already did.

"And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (Check this out) But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you." (Joshua 23:14-16)

PL - I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THIS CREATES A CONTRADICTION IN THE BIBLE. Now, if you say it doesn't, you have to show me why my argument is wrong. I I have already dealt with this argument.

If you look at the land Joshua conquered--I have provided TWO MAPS of it--you will see it is nowhere NEAR the area described in Gen 15 and 17. Second, they did not receive it in Joshua's day as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION. Joshua 21 is a fulfillment of Numbers 34, not Genesis 15 and 17.

Tell me how you avoid making a contradiction in the Bible here, PL.

[puritan lad]

Nothing difficult there. You know the classical disensationalist responses to each one of these, so it isn't like you believe we don't have an answer. It is that you believe that answer isn't good enough. Which is fine by me. So I tell you what. I'll post the stock answers for those.

We'll be waiting. (Just make sure your keep it literal). Oh, I forgot. Literal is whatever you say it is.

[Jac3510]

And I'll answer answer them as soon as you've answered my questions, since they have been repeatedly asked, some of them more than three times. I have already pointed interested readers to an easy source if they are concerned I am just avoiding the questions.

You post answers to my questions, I'll post answers to yours. In the meantime, we have to believe that you support an errant Bible and that you believe in gaps while you decry dispensationalists for doing so.