Listen: Hitch offered to debate me. I accepted. Hitch asked what he wanted proof for, and the way he wanted it. Not so fast! He is stacking the deck in his favor.
I can agree to debate you Hitch, but that doesn't mean I will agrtee to YOUR RULES. We both have to agree to that.
I gave you an example in regards to the Trinity how your rules don't fly even on one of the fundamentals of the faith! So I refused to be chained to it in regards to this debate.
I will attempt to show from Scripture what the Dispensations are.
If Hitch htinks any or all points are wrong, he can't attempt to rebutt from Scritpure.
I will then respond to that, and then he can, and so on.
That is fair, rational debate.
You want to debate Dan 9 before I even get started with Hirch, and you and rapt aere already declaring winners before the first round! I'm glad you two aren't the judges, it reminds me of the Eastern bloc judges during the Olympics. They always voted Communist.
Now Rev, iJohn 5:7 is a proof IF YOU ACCEPT IT as a true NT reading. Most today don't. I do, being a King James man, but I suspect Hitch isn't. So then He does not have ONE VERSE in the NT to prove the Trinity with, yet he wants me to PROVE all the dispensations in a way he couldn't prove the Trinity.
I'm not falling for that! Practice what you preach, know what I mean? So The Trinity question is relevant, NOT TO THE DEBATE, but the RULES of the debate.
Otherwise I can start asking these kinds of questions, like:
1- Show me where any apostle condemned dispensationalism by name as false and another gospel
2- Show me where they said Pretersim is the right way to explain the Scriptures
3- Show me where the Aposltes said there IS NOT 7 dispensations
None of you can answer those questions or prove your views if I ask them THAT WAY! So don't be HYPOCRITICAL and expect me to allow Hitch to stack the deck and not object.
So if Hitch agrees to how I would attempt to do this, we can continue.