LOL.....LOL....LOL.....
Like when Darby fell off his horse, and claimed that's what made him believe that the kingdom in the OT was different than the Christian church?
Or maybe you mean that time when a teenage girl told Darby she had a "vision" that Jesus returned twice, and that that "vision" was how Darby came up with his rapture theory?
Those things are NOT my idea of "scripturally sound study principles"
Nope.
All he claimed was that the resulting rest from that fall had allowed him some time to study things out in the Scripture.
And he did not hold that Prophecy had continued.
Thus, he would not have believed McDonald's supposed visions - which were actually POST; NOT Darby's PRE-Trib view - had been inspired.
All these issues have long been debunked, over and over, and over.
But you and yours continue to spread your misinformation about it all.
For one reason out of others also obviously evident but to your kind.
That yours is store bought "wisdom."
Yours is your over reliance on the often just as incompetent labor of others, who also had relied on the incompetence and misinformation of those who had parroted the same in books "about" before them...
And because you subscribe to that as the way to learn "about" the Bible, you project that as being everyone else's basis also.
Your kind are ever completely unable to fathom that a person could actually sit down, look at a chapter in Scripture from scratch, asking only 'what general rules of thumb might I gather here in this chapter of Scripture, this writer here in Scripture appears to be following and or basing things on, from how he is using words, ad so on; here in this chapter in my Bible?'
Should that result in a conclusion that you also happen to hold to, that, you books based incompetent, does not mean I follow you.
Should it result in a conclusion the RCC Pope also asserts about the Trinity: that, you books learned incompetent; does not mean I follow the RCC.
It is fascinating this incompetence you and your kind are ever stuck in - all this time on TOL, I still find that posting to your kind is far too often the issue of having to talk down to your poor level of understanding of the actual source behind a thing.
I continue to find that your kind have not grown to where you can see the difference between studying out a thing from scratch in Scripture itself for what principles it might reveal what it is asserting is based on - that there is a difference between that - and having gotten a thing out of a book "about."
But hey, if that means you will continue to unwittingly promote Bible students like Darby, then by all means, mention him often, and call me a "Darby follower" - at every opportunity your obvious incompetence compels you to.
As one who ever approaches the Scripture based on the above question, I have concluded that Darby had often also asked a similar question.
As had Baker; Stam; and O'Hair - in case you fail to remember to knock those three men.
It is crystal clear obvious to me by many of their assertions, that they too had obviously asked my above study question.
The more astute will not only ignore your obvious bias, but will go on to look into their writings to see for themselves what such had actually asserted.
The less sincere will not, no matter their claim of sincerity otherwise; as your kind continue to prove.
Your loss, as always.
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17.
