More like shooting down your sacred cows :Grizzly: :cow:
The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations. It was not about D'ism, or had anything to do with 2P2P which is not in the Bible....
You have just revealed once more why you do not know of what you speak on that issue.
For you just now contradicted yourself...
You see this that you said - "The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations."
What you actually said, oblivious to your having done so, is this - The expression about dividing had to do with [dividing between] what to say in various [different] church leadership situations.
You asserted the very thing you have consistently denied - that the passage is reffering to a need for a distinction between things...that differ from one another.
Talk about the bliss of ignorance to the obvious.
You could however, take up a real question like STP's or GM's limiting the 'shadow vs reality' of Heb 10 so that it doesn't 'touch' prophecy. lol, that's about as arbitrary and artificial as it gets. Meanwhile the PROPHECY of the new covenant is right there being exegeted by the writer right in front of their faces. So they say what they are reading their is ONLY for Jews and is about things X000 years from that time.
And because the 'set aside' language is there, they are adamant that it has not been (set aside).
Modern Bible study!
No. They were attempting to make the passage fit the Dispensationalism so many other passages point to without needing to make any of them do that.
Every once in a while; try going up one more level of abstraction :chuckle:
Hi and the only thing sacred to me is the bible RIGHTLY DIVIDED or Notihng will do !!
If you new about the GAP between Gen1:1 and 2 you will tells us what it is !!
You call it a Theory and look forward to your LIGHT !!
It's not my theory. I think it's stupid. :kookoo:
Hi and just prove it STUPID and you say it si just a Theory , should be easy for you !!
I do not debate Gen 1:1-2 , because I will have to study up a STUPID THEORY !!
So try if you want to AND stop calling it STUPID
It's stupid. I can say it again if you want, or maybe you would prefer, ignorant? :dunce: I don't want to talk about it either. You seem to have an affinity for Gap theories, so have fun with it.