Quid Nunc.
ECT The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Quid Nunc.
Is that th' Hellenas batch or th' Hellenistes batch?
Right Divider
Body part
WOULD not DID.
Acts 2:30 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
It WILL happen.
The LORD Jesus Christ said that THIS would happen when He RETURNS.
Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Get with the program.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You need to get deprogrammed: you are in a cult that doesn't finish verses and destroys context. and then it finds one verse on a topic and makes it the fav until nothing else exists.
If you want to discuss further give a complete statement about Eph 1 which has no sheep/goats thingie, which should be bothering you as a literalist. (I have 2 goats, and you have me scared what could happen).
You chop, knife, destroy, blast, ignore Acts 2 AS A PROFESSION. The rest of the grammar says there that seeing this ahead of time David spoke the resurrection--oh, are you one of those people who doesn't think the resurrection ever happened and is going to in the future? Could be, either way you need deprogramming because you do this with many, many verses.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is obviously what David 'saw' ahead of time; how could it not be the throne of his visions in the Psalms? You are worthless on this and many, many verses.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Irrational, and made up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The thickest of ironies...
Right Divider
Body part
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, it's rich for one who has been tossed to and fro by thousands of commentaries to accuse you of that.
lol - you and yours don't necessarily have to comment on one thing or another, for me to know what your view on it or not might or might not be, anymore than, say, someone like an Interplanner has to comment on any of his views.
Case in point - you do not agree with the following, do you? :chuckle:
That had also been Stam's view (Acts Dispensationally Considered, Vol. 2, pages 73-76, The Berean Bible Society).
And but for the translation issue, that is also the view of KJVO Mid-Acts Based Richard Jordan, the Founder and President of Grace School of the Bible.
The view that in Acts 11, the sense of the KJV's "Grecians" there is "Greeks."
Heath's notes on the context are spot on.
Prov. 27:17.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Show me how David did NOT "speak of the resurrection"; otherwise quite being a crude person making Christian fellowship sour.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner
They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
My mind is not made up regarding Grecians.
Right Divider
Body part
- David did write about the resurrection.
- David did NOT write that it would be an enthronement.
- Neither did Peter.
- It's impossible for us to have true fellowship with someone speaking so much falsehood.
Sure punches a hole in Jordan's staunch KJVO position!
Hi STP , and it may depend on who's translation you will believe !
GRECIANS are mentioned in Joel 3:6 !
Robert C Brock translate Acts 6:1 as murmuring of the GRECIAN Jews against the Hebrews !!~
And Acts 9:29 is translated the same way GRECIANS Jews and there are more verse that I have found !!
dan p
Perhaps; perhaps not.
I continue to find I do not necessarily agree with the man on every point he ever utters, and on all sorts of things - just on a lot of his points - a whole lot.
Nevertheless, not on all.
You obviously haven't a clue beyond your own bias, what GSB's own full basis for their KJVO position is.
Theirs is a unique one - not only within the KJVO Movement in general, but within the Mid-Acts KJVO Movement, in particular.
Not that I fully agree with it, or not. My own verdict is still out.
But at least I have actually bothered to find out not only what their actual basis is, but in full, and from one or another of their people, and over time, rather than via one soundbyte or two, here and there, as misinterpreted by one ignoramus, or another.
You'll each have to actually look into it in a similarly detailed manner - when you each get off the high horse of your own errors.
And Steko - you left out your pals STP and heir - you well know they are also diehard KJVO :chuckle:
Though their KJVO position is as chockful of holes as their hybrid views - it often comes accross as the mere ignorance, parroting, poor study method, and superstition, it obviously is.
They even use the letters KJB over the letters KJV.
And never mind STP's ever insisting Interplanner pick up and believe a KJB.
Never mind the fact that the King, State Church, and men behind the KJV had all held views far and away closer to Interplanner's basically Reformed model than to our Dispensational one.
:chuckle:
Whoops, now I've gone and done it, once more - I've given the holier than thou TOL MADs the exact directness they constantly give others - only to cry foul whenever it is given them. :chuckle:
Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.
The argument of many is that the proper word in Acts 11 is "Greeks."
It is the "better manuscripts translation" argument - that "later and better manuscripts (both later found and found to be the better manuscript) support the word "Greeks" in Acts 11.
In contrast, the argument of the KJVO position is that "the better manuscript" argument is false - that the actual sense of the word translated "Grecians" there is "Greeks."
I guess it could be called The Contextual Argument.
Theirs is that "Greeks" is the sense the context points to.
The argument on one side is about there being two different original wordings, and "Greeks" is the better manuscript support.
The context supports this.
The argument of the KJVO is that the context supports "Grecians" as referring to "Greeks."
The context supports the sense being "Greeks."
True, approach does play a role in these things.
But often, all that might actually be behind one approach or another is not very well communicated via a soundbyte or two, nor via that, here and there.
Unless you are actually very good at discerning another's actual approach on one thing or another, DanP; you haven't much to say on this.
And you often prove yourself clueless as to where even other MADs are coming from :chuckle:
It is what it is; whether you like it, or not.
Nevertheless, we each have...Romans 5:8.
And that is plenty!
- Status