Take away the daily sacrifice - Daniel 11:31

[David M]

Members of the jury (forum) what say you?

God bless---Twospirits

Hello Twospirits

I started this new thread to answer one point from the other thread you were having the very same arguments with Richard that you have both continued to have in this thread.

Richard has not replied to answer your point about taking away the daily sacrifice and Rose has added her reply which is on topic. I am not expert on history and therefore I am looking forward to the debate on this one point reaching a conclusion by other contributors. Neither of you have to go back to the beginning, all you have to do is debate this one point. If you come to agreement, you can move on, if no agreement is found other than to disagree, then that sums up the conclusion that will arise in virtually every argument/debate with Richard.

I get frustrated at verbal ping-pong and have had enough of those with Richard, I try to get discussions back on track as this is far more edifying to have a "normal/sane/rational" discussion.

All the best

David

[Twospirits]

Hello Twospirits

I started this new thread to answer one point from the other thread you were having the very same arguments with Richard that you have both continued to have in this thread.

Richard has not replied to answer your point about taking away the daily sacrifice and Rose has added her reply which is on topic. I am not expert on history and therefore I am looking forward to the debate on this one point reaching a conclusion by other contributors. Neither of you have to go back to the beginning, all you have to do is debate this one point. If you come to agreement, you can move on, if no agreement is found other than to disagree, then that sums up the conclusion that will arise in virtually every argument/debate with Richard.

I get frustrated at verbal ping-pong and have had enough of those with Richard, I try to get discussions back on track as this is far more edifying to have a "normal/sane/rational" discussion.

All the best

David

I first want to thank you for staring this thread in order to answer the point given in the other thread.

This is my argument and appeal to debate this point and then move on. The problem is Richard sees it as "irrelevant" to his argument given in post #3 of the thread and refuses to discuss it. This is why I am further appealing it here in this thread to give Richard all benefit of doubt. I think I am being very fair on this issue.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I first want to thank you for staring this thread in order to answer the point given in the other thread.

This is my argument and appeal to debate this point and then move on. The problem is Richard sees it as "irrelevant" to his argument given in post #3 of the thread and refuses to discuss it. This is why I am further appealing it here in this thread to give Richard all benefit of doubt. I think I am being very fair on this issue.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

Since you have not quoted a single word from my argument in Post #3 that depends upon any eschatological assumptions or conclusions, your insistence that we debate this issue from Daniel 9 is an obvious misdirection.

You challenged the veracity of my argument in Post #3 but you have not yet shown any error in it whatsoever. If you would like to concede that point and admit that my argument stands, we can move forward from there. If not, it would be folly to engage in a convoluted debate about the ambiguous details of Daniel 9 since their proper interpretation is critically dependent upon our eschatological assumptions.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

You challenged the veracity of my argument in Post #3 but you have not yet shown any error in it whatsoever. If you would like to concede that point and admit that my argument stands, we can move forward from there. If not, it would be folly to engage in a convoluted debate about the ambiguous details of Daniel 9 since their proper interpretation is critically dependent upon our eschatological assumptions.

I didn't mention Daniel 9, I mentioned Dan. 12:11 but no matter, you hold that it is fulfilled so how can you now say the details are “ambiguous?”

Here's what you responded to in the “Already?Not Yet” thread in post #177:

Originally Posted by Twospirits
Richard holds that the Luke 21:20, “armies surrounding Jerusalem” is what Mt.24:15 and Mark 13:14 “the abomination of desolation” is speaking of. But there are several problems with this view. It relates to the prophecy of Daniel, and the “standing in the holy place” relates to the “sanctuary” rather than the city. 1. The Roman armies did not stand in the temple until the end of the war/tribulation. 2. Others hold that the “abomination of desolation” referred to priests or the zealots who infiltrated the temple and committed abominations. But the problem with this view is that 3. the prophecy of Daniel says, “And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

This passage tells us that the daily in the “holy place” is taken away 3 ½ years+ “prior” to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. This means that those who hold the view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem as being the abomination or the zealots standing in the holy place, the sacrifices would have to have been taken away/ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up by either the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem or the zealots who would stand in the holy place. History shows this did not occur, Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even “after” the Zealots entered the temple and the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. (Josephus' War with the Jews; Bk. 5, chap 1:2,3). Therefore the Roman armies nor the Zealots can be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f; Dan. 9:24,27; Dan.12:7,11,12, Revelation, and related NT prophetic passages.

Richard replied,
I never said the "abomination of desolation" was the Roman army. On the contrary, I have REPEATEDLY said that no one knows the definition because the Bible doesn't say. But I agree with the alternate point you suggest, which is that the dead bodies and abominations committed by the zealots who took over the Temple before it was destroyed. Your argument about the time is irrelevant because those kinds of details are much too ambiguous to be used in the foundation of any eschatological system.

My response to you is given in post # 189:

Far from “irrelevant” or “ambiguous”!! Jesus points directly to Daniel that THIS sign, “the ceasing of sacrifices,” would bring in the “setting up of the abomination” 1290 days after they have ceased, and the abomination would bring in the “desolation.” We see no ceasing of sacrifices in the detailed account of Josephus' “War of the Jews.” NONE! And Josephus gave a play by play account of the entire war.

In your reply on the “abomination” you hold that no one knows the definition, but that you agree “that ( it was- emphasis mine) the dead bodies and abominations committed by the zealots who took over the Temple before it was destroyed.” Now since “the time of its fulfillment” is clearly seen in Dan. 12:11 how can you say my argument about “the time” of its fulfillment is irrelevant? How can you say these details are “ too ambiguous to be used in the foundation of any eschatological system?” When you yourself used it in your conclusions, this is seen in your article.

Here are your statements from the article:

“These passages contain Christ's great prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that were fulfilled in 70 AD. They are profoundly integrated with the whole prophetic complex of the Bible, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.”

Thus we see that there was a gap of about 40 years between the time that Christ preached the "acceptible year of the Lord" and the time of the destruction of Jerusalem which He specifically called the "days of vengeance" when "all things which are written" would be fulfilled and which directly corresponds to "the day of vengeance of our God" in Isaiah 61:2. This is confirmed by Daniel 9:24-27 which predicted 490 years till the consummation (not 2,490+ years, as futurist suggest). And it is confirmed a third time by Daniel 12:6-7 which said that all Daniel's prophecies would fulfilled when the "power of the holy people" was "scattered" which happened in 70 AD.”

Do you now deny this?

And in Dan. 12:7 we have “the time” when it would be accomplished. And Dan. 12:11-12 give us further details of “those times” when they would be accomplished.

So in our argument on this issue we see in your writings above a clear contradiction when you state that they “are much too ambiguous to be used in the foundation of any eschatological system.”

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In your reply on the “abomination” you hold that no one knows the definition, but that you agree “that ( it was- emphasis mine) the dead bodies and abominations committed by the zealots who took over the Temple before it was destroyed.” Now since “the time of its fulfillment” is clearly seen in Dan. 12:11 how can you say my argument about “the time” of its fulfillment is irrelevant? How can you say these details are “ too ambiguous to be used in the foundation of any eschatological system?” When you yourself used it in your conclusions, this is seen in your article.

I was not talking about any specific verse in Daniel 9 or 12. There are many ambiguities in those passages. The abomination of desolation, the meaning of the numbers 1290 (which contradicts the number 1260 in Rev) and the meaning of the 1335 days, the meaning of the "covenant" in Dan 9:26, and so on and so forth. It is a mass of confusion, and that's why it is the very foundation of your eschatology. Your arguments depend critically upon confusion and ambiguity. That's why you always refuse to find any FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT. If we can't even agree that there is a tree in the yard, it's pretty futile debating the color of its leaves. Do you understand this point?

Here are your statements from the article:

“These passages contain Christ's great prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that were fulfilled in 70 AD. They are profoundly integrated with the whole prophetic complex of the Bible, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.”

Thus we see that there was a gap of about 40 years between the time that Christ preached the "acceptible year of the Lord" and the time of the destruction of Jerusalem which He specifically called the "days of vengeance" when "all things which are written" would be fulfilled and which directly corresponds to "the day of vengeance of our God" in Isaiah 61:2. This is confirmed by Daniel 9:24-27 which predicted 490 years till the consummation (not 2,490+ years, as futurist suggest). And it is confirmed a third time by Daniel 12:6-7 which said that all Daniel's prophecies would fulfilled when the "power of the holy people" was "scattered" which happened in 70 AD.”

Do you now deny this?

No. Why do you ask? It has nothing to do with my argument in Post #3. And it's only a conclusion I derived from Scripture. It's not a presupposition like you use in the foundation of your Futurism. That's why you are confused. You are not distinguishing between ASSUMPTIONS vs. CONCLUSIONS.

And in Dan. 12:7 we have “the time” when it would be accomplished. And Dan. 12:11-12 give us further details of “those times” when they would be accomplished.

So in our argument on this issue we see in your writings above a clear contradiction when you state that they “are much too ambiguous to be used in the foundation of any eschatological system.”

Again, you missed my point. As explained above, there are many ambiguous texts you can use to establish your Futurist doctrines. I'm not interested in debating those since we can't even agree on the color of the sky. We need to establish a foundation on the MAIN and PLAIN things clearly established by many mutually confirming verses. Then we can understand the ambiguous things that are NEVER even defined in Scripture such as the "time of the Gentiles" and the meaning of the 1290 days vs. the 1260 days, and so on.

I've been trying to get your feet on the ground of what the Bible really says for years now Henry! Why do you refuse? Why do you not understand that it is the first step to establishing the truth of any study?

All the best,

Richard

[sylvius]

I've been trying to get your feet on the ground of what the Bible really says for years now

first thing to do for you is to reconsider Daniel 9

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3409.htm

[Richard Amiel McGough]

first thing to do for you is to reconsider Daniel 9

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3409.htm

The modern Jewish interpretation was formed in opposition to Christianity so we would expect it to be designed to hide any reference that would support Christianity. A good example of this kind of tampering with the translation is seen in Isaiah 9:6(5). The mechon-mamre site doesn't even bother to translate it, but rather just transliterates it:

ה כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד, שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

And the Tanakh turns it into gibberish:

TNK Isaiah 9:5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" --

So try again sylvius ...

[sylvius]

The modern Jewish interpretation was formed in opposition to Christianity so we would expect it to be designed to hide any reference that would support Christianity. A good example of this kind of tampering with the translation is seen in Isaiah 9:6(5). The mechon-mamre site doesn't even bother to translate it, but rather just transliterates it:

ה כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד, שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

And the Tanakh turns it into gibberish:

TNK Isaiah 9:5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" --

So try again sylvius ...

I asked about Daniel 9.

Not about Jewish interpretation.



NT doesn't build at all on the "Christian" interpretation of Daniel 9.

Certain Christian interpretation, because not all Christians do interpret it in your preterist way,

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I was not talking about any specific verse in Daniel 9 or 12. There are many ambiguities in those passages. The abomination of desolation, the meaning of the numbers 1290 (which contradicts the number 1260 in Rev) and the meaning of the 1335 days, the meaning of the "covenant" in Dan 9:26, and so on and so forth. It is a mass of confusion, --

Neither was I, in the opening words of my post I stated, “you hold that it is fulfilled so how can you now say the details are “ambiguous?” YOUR position is THE TOPIC of the post. I did not state one word on my position, the whole argument is on your position and what you stated in your article. Here are your very next words, “--and that's why it is the very foundation of your eschatology.” Me and my eschatology? I thought the topic was on your eschatological position? What you think of my eschatology has nothing to do with the topic of the post, as you would say, it is “irrelevant” to the topic at hand. This is what is called “misdirection” by the poster, as can be seen as we read. It becomes all about me and my eschatology.

That's why you always refuse to find any FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT.

No, that's not true, it is because it leads right back to the BEGINNING where we “agreed” that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come to proclaim the coming of Christ. And whenever we reach a certain point in our debates on eschatology in these past two years, it is always brought up by you that we find a “foundation of agreement” and move on from there. Well, its obvious that this would bring us back full circle to the beginning, to where we agreed on John the Baptist.

No. Why do you ask? It has nothing to do with my argument in Post #3. And it's only a conclusion I derived from Scripture. It's not a presupposition like you use in the foundation of your Futurism. That's why you are confused. You are not distinguishing between ASSUMPTIONS vs. CONCLUSIONS.

Again you deny it has anything to with your argument in Post #3. When I showed with your very own words of the article that it most certainly does. Here is part of it again:

“The title "Synoptic Apocalypse" refers to the three parallel versions of the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. These passages contain Christ's great prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that were fulfilled in 70 AD. They are profoundly integrated with the whole prophetic complex of the Bible, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.

You deny your very own words. The “parallel passages” or “unity of the Discourse,” some of which you use in post #3 is the very foundation of your conclusion of all the prophetic texts, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.”

Then you say your conclusion is derived from scripture but mine is not. Inferring that your conclusion is correct and mine is not. Thus I am confused on distinguishing between an “assumption” and a “conclusion.” Therefore your conclusion is correct and not an assumption, and mine is an assumption and a wrong conclusion. Hey Richard, nice use of planting inference in your words on who is correct and who is wrong.

Again, you missed my point. As explained above, there are many ambiguous texts you can use to establish your Futurist doctrines. I'm not interested in debating those since we can't even agree on the color of the sky.

No you missed the point, the topic of my post is not my doctrine but “your doctrine.” It is not about “many ambiguous texts” it is about Dan. 12:11.

We need to establish a foundation on the MAIN and PLAIN things clearly established by many mutually confirming verses. Then we can understand the ambiguous things that are NEVER even defined in Scripture such as the "time of the Gentiles" and the meaning of the 1290 days vs. the 1260 days, and so on.

And here comes that suggestion again -that we establish a foundation-which points back to the beginning.

I've been trying to get your feet on the ground of what the Bible really says for years now Henry! Why do you refuse? Why do you not understand that it is the first step to establishing the truth of any study?

You mean what the Bible says according to Richard Amiel McGough. We took those steps in our debates the past two years, so you are wrong to say I have refused.

You completely evaded the topic of my entire post except for a short sentence of “puzzlement” of why I asked. Where the topic became my doctrine of eschatology which is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Neither was I, in the opening words of my post I stated, “you hold that it is fulfilled so how can you now say the details are “ambiguous?” YOUR position is THE TOPIC of the post. I did not state one word on my position, the whole argument is on your position and what you stated in your article. Here are your very next words, “--and that's why it is the very foundation of your eschatology.” Me and my eschatology? I thought the topic was on your eschatological position? What you think of my eschatology has nothing to do with the topic of the post, as you would say, it is “irrelevant” to the topic at hand. This is what is called “misdirection” by the poster, as can be seen as we read. It becomes all about me and my eschatology.

You introduced your eschatology in an attempt to answer my Post #3. That was your mistake. My argument in Post #3 is about the UNITY of the three versions of the Olivet Discourse. I did not use any eschatological assumptions or conclusions in forming my argument. You were supposed to be refuting my argument, not merely asserting your eschatological assumptions and conclusions. Simple as that. You have not refuted anything I wrote in that argument.

That's why you always refuse to find any FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT.

No, that's not true, it is because it leads right back to the BEGINNING where we “agreed” that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come to proclaim the coming of Christ. And whenever we reach a certain point in our debates on eschatology in these past two years, it is always brought up by you that we find a “foundation of agreement” and move on from there. Well, its obvious that this would bring us back full circle to the beginning, to where we agreed on John the Baptist.

You are correct that it leads back to John the Baptist because he fulfilled the both prophecies of the "Elijah who was to come." Christ made this explicit:

Matthew 11:8 "But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. 9 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. 10 "For this is he of whom it is written: 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.' 11 "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Likewise, we read in Luke:

Luke 1:17 "He [John the Baptist] will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

This proves that John the Baptist fulfilled BOTH prophecies in Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. 6 And he will turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers, Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."

This is confirmed by the fact that John warned of the wrath to come:

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

The Bible makes no prophecies of "two comings of the Elijah to come" and if John did not fulfill both prophecies of Elijah then Jesus was not Messiah. I could go on and on and on. All these verses confirm each other and they express the essential message of the New Testament with no ambiguity: Jesus was Messiah and the wrath of God came down upon Jerusalem in the great and terrible day of the Lord in 70 CE. Your eschatology has no clarity or confirmation like this at all. You have to write ten thousand words about the meaning of "and" just to force one piece of your puzzle into place. And you have to deny every time text in the entire NT which fits effortlessly into the Preterist understanding. The difference between our eschatologies is like night and day. As long as you deny the MAIN and the PLAIN things that are taught by many mutually confirming verses, we will only go in circles because you are not dealing with what the Bible actually says. That's why I always seek to bring you back to the foundation. You entire eschatological foundation is nothing but sand.

No. Why do you ask? It has nothing to do with my argument in Post #3. And it's only a conclusion I derived from Scripture. It's not a presupposition like you use in the foundation of your Futurism. That's why you are confused. You are not distinguishing between ASSUMPTIONS vs. CONCLUSIONS.

Again you deny it has anything to with your argument in Post #3. When I showed with your very own words of the article that it most certainly does. Here is part of it again:

“The title "Synoptic Apocalypse" refers to the three parallel versions of the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. These passages contain Christ's great prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that were fulfilled in 70 AD. They are profoundly integrated with the whole prophetic complex of the Bible, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.

You deny your very own words. The “parallel passages” or “unity of the Discourse,” some of which you use in post #3 is the very foundation of your conclusion of all the prophetic texts, especially those of Daniel and Revelation.”

I do not deny any of the words I wrote. Again, you are revealing your confusion between FOUNDATION vs. CONCLUSION. Those words I wrote were my CONCLUSION that follows from my study which is based on the FOUNDATION of what the Bible actually states.

You really need to understand that your point is irrelevant because I did not appeal to that conclusion in anything I wrote in Post #3. If I did, you would be able to quote something I wrote and show that it depended upon an eschatological assumption or conclusions. But you can't do that. I've pointed this out to you many times now and you continue pressing the same erroneous point. If you could prove that I used an eschatological assumption, you would have done so! But you can't, so you need to admit that you are wrong on this point.

Then you say your conclusion is derived from scripture but mine is not. Inferring that your conclusion is correct and mine is not. Thus I am confused on distinguishing between an “assumption” and a “conclusion.” Therefore your conclusion is correct and not an assumption, and mine is an assumption and a wrong conclusion. Hey Richard, nice use of planting inference in your words on who is correct and who is wrong.

I am not "inferring" anything when I say that. My point is that you make ASSUMPTIONS that are not based on Scripture to establish your Futurism. That's the problem. I was not trying to imply who was right or wrong. I was trying to get you to see that you have invented an unbiblical eschatology and your every effort to defend your eschatology depends only on words that cannot be confirmed. That's why we need to find the FOUNDATION of agreement about what the Bible actually says. It would be futile to debate the color of the leaves if we can't even agree that there is a tree in the yard! Why are you so opposed to finding agreement about what the Bible actually says? I'll tell you why. If you admit what the Bible really says, then your entire eschatological system crumbles to dust. Just look at John the Baptist. He fulfilled BOTH prophecies of Elijah. But you can't admit that simple fact because your entire eschatological system depends upon denying that very fact (along with hundreds of other equally solid biblical facts).

Again, you missed my point. As explained above, there are many ambiguous texts you can use to establish your Futurist doctrines. I'm not interested in debating those since we can't even agree on the color of the sky.

No you missed the point, the topic of my post is not my doctrine but “your doctrine.” It is not about “many ambiguous texts” it is about Dan. 12:11.

And Daniel 12:11 has nothing to do with the argument I presented in Post #3. That's the argument you were supposed to be refuting.

And there are other issues that are much more foundational than anything in Daniel that must be established first. You focus on ambiguous passages so you can write mountains of words that obscure the plain and obvious meaning of the Bible. We've both learned that never leads to any certain knowledge. When it comes to ambiguous passages, everyone must invent their own solution, so there is no way for anyone to know who is right.

Think about this: If we can't agree about the most fundamental things established by many mutually confirming verses, what hope is there to debate the ambiguous passages? Don't you get it? I've been explaining this for years!

We need to establish a foundation on the MAIN and PLAIN things clearly established by many mutually confirming verses. Then we can understand the ambiguous things that are NEVER even defined in Scripture such as the "time of the Gentiles" and the meaning of the 1290 days vs. the 1260 days, and so on.

And here comes that suggestion again -that we establish a foundation-which points back to the beginning.

Exactly. The FOUNDATION establishes everything. The meaning of the ambiguous verses depend upon the eschatological conclusions we derive from the main and plain things.

Your laughing face indicates you don't understand the first principles of Biblical interpretation. We are talking about the FOUNDATION! How can you disregard it? It makes no sense at all.

I've been trying to get your feet on the ground of what the Bible really says for years now Henry! Why do you refuse? Why do you not understand that it is the first step to establishing the truth of any study?

You mean what the Bible says according to Richard Amiel McGough. We took those steps in our debates the past two years, so you are wrong to say I have refused.

That's right Henry. And the first thing that Richard Amiel McGough says is that we must establish our understanding on the main and plain things taught in many mutually confirming and unambiguous verses. I understand why you refuse. My method is fatal to Futurism because Futurism is fundamentally unbiblical.

You completely evaded the topic of my entire post except for a short sentence of “puzzlement” of why I asked. Where the topic became my doctrine of eschatology which is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I evaded nothing but another trip to the fantasy land of speculative interpretations of ambiguous verses requiring ten thousand word posts to establish the meaning of the word "and."

You are doing everything in your power to evade my argument in Post #3 because you simply cannot answer it.

All the best,

Richard