Interplanner
Well-known member
There are many many posts calling me the commentarian, but not you yourselves. Is that not dishonest?
Last edited:
ECT The club's defensiveness about commentaries
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why do you rely on them?
I suspect the ratio of commentary to Bible for you is 90/10.
Right Divider
Body part
That is some terrible grammar there grammar scholar.
Right Divider
Body part
Because they give him the framework from which to misinterp the Bible.
My guess is closer to 99:1
Interplanner
Well-known member
You're right on that. I got in a hurry. It was supposed to be 'but you yourselves don't fuss about commentaries when they are D'ist, and you don't call yourselves commentarians.
Interplanner
Well-known member
As I keep saying, heb 9-10 is the commentary on Heb 8. It is also the application in Heb 10B and there is nothing that would relate to the land or future of it, but rather letting go of the land (their property) as mentioned in the end verses.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Neither is there land cancellation in it, Dr. Snodgrass.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Zech 5A and Zech 5B when juxtaposed with Eph 3C and Malachi 2R show the error in your "custody chain".
Juxtaposing is essential. The land of the future is directly tied to the past. The "custody chain", if you will, is tainted, as was the evidence in the OJ case.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
IP cannot get past his desire to annihilate the red dirt promises, and propel forward his fantastical visions.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You think your humor is cute, too cute.
The chain of custody is what Christ taught during the 40 days. The heck if it has anything about a restored Israel or Israel-Judah. There are 2500 hundred quotes to study. Which D'ism for 150 years now has tried to undo because it "knows" better.
The chain of custody is what Christ taught during the 40 days. The heck if it has anything about a restored Israel or Israel-Judah. There are 2500 hundred quotes to study. Which D'ism for 150 years now has tried to undo because it "knows" better.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Mid first century: All they which were in Asia had turned away from Paul's doctrine.
Just because your errors have existed since the first century, it is no reason to be proud.
Right Divider
Body part
Just more commentarian claptrap.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
Sometimes, we learn something from a commentary.
But, unlike you, we do NOT use the commentaries as the basis for understanding the scripture.
THAT is your problem (among others).
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nonsense, the text says so.
You don't know the text:
24:45 NOTHING about restoring Israel
Acts 1:3
Acts 26:22 The same limitation: nothing about the restoration of Israel but everything is about Christ and his mission.
You are full of your own ideas, and not the text when it matters most.
Maybe on TOL here the Christian Zioniusts or some of them are doing the equivalent of the Leftists and the Mainstream Media's obsession with claiming that Trump is a Russian agent. Maybe Sessions is one too. How about Donald Trump junior, maybe he, for the Mainstream Media, is a Russian agent. And Scaramucci??
The dispensationalists here are not accusing us of being Russian agents but the business of accusing their opponents here of using commentaries is much like saying Trump is a Russian agent. When substantial arguments using scripture do not work, or it is too much trouble to think up new real arguments, resort to the commentary attack.
The dispensationalists here are not accusing us of being Russian agents but the business of accusing their opponents here of using commentaries is much like saying Trump is a Russian agent. When substantial arguments using scripture do not work, or it is too much trouble to think up new real arguments, resort to the commentary attack.
:rotfl:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
- Status