The false doctrines of the Preterist and Futurist interpretation

[Jay Ross]

What are you talking about? What is this based on?

You said that I had not used scripture to justify my previous post. All I have done above is to provide my paraphrase of Daniel 9:24-27 with notes to show that I had not just created my own opinion.

It seems to me that you have ignored the fact that the footnotes at the end of the post refer back to the scriptures that I had provided.

You seem to want to use the same tactics as Davy in the false arguments that you bring against other members in a vain attempt to justify your thoughts on the matter.

Goodbye

 

[covenantee]

You said that I had not used scripture to justify my previous post. All I have done above is to provide my paraphrase of Daniel 9:24-27 with notes to show that I had not just created my own opinion.

It seems to me that you have ignored the fact that the footnotes at the end of the post refer back to the scriptures that I had provided.

You seem to want to use the same tactics as Davy in the false arguments that you bring against other members in a vain attempt to justify your thoughts on the matter.

Goodbye

What recognized Bible teachers, past or present, agree with your interpretations?

 

[Jay Ross]

What recognized Bible teachers, past or present, agree with your interpretations?

We have more information available to us today, than was available to past Biblical teachers.

For example, "What was the time period given in Ex 20:4-6."

For me the time period described in this commandment spanned 4 ages which was nominally 4,096 solar years. Sadly, many teachers were suggesting that the time span was just four descendant generations. History confirms, as we approach the end of the fourth age/generation of the existence of the nation of Israel, that this commandment/statute was not talking about descendant generations, which is, I believe, the adopted understanding of the Jews' priests and religious scholars.

 

[covenantee]

We have more information available to us today, than was available to past Biblical teachers.

I said "past or present".

 

[Jay Ross]

I said "past or present".

Joel Richardson is just one of the present day "scholar" but he still holds onto the past understanding which reaches back to the false teaching of the Reformation fathers with respect to the entity type of the beasts of Daniel 7.

But I have been pointing out this fact from the books he has published dating back to the 1990's.

 

[covenantee]

Joel Richardson is just one of the present day "scholar" but he still holds onto the past understanding which reaches back to the false teaching of the Reformation fathers with respect to the entity type of the beasts of Daniel 7.

But I have been pointing out this fact from the books he has published dating back to the 1990's.

So Joel Richardson doesn't agree with you, and you haven't cited anyone else who does.

This Scripture was written for you.

2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Jay Ross]

So Joel Richardson doesn't agree with you, and you haven't cited anyone else who does.

This Scripture was written for you.

2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

You know, it seems that you are hell bent on discrediting what I post irrespective of its truths.

Sadly, the available scriptures that we have not been corrected because of people like you who want to hold onto the past understandings. The translations that have been changed and accepted have followed a particular bent theological understanding or cultural understanding.

So, if our available translations have not presented the same contextual understanding as is found in the original transcripts then we will have great difficulty in understand God and His purposes for mankind. For example, the Promise Land in Gen 13 was never a "forever" covenantal promise, nor was it ever given to Abraham while he was alive. Yet that is the way it has been presented in out translations. The possession of the Land promised in Gen 13 was stripped from Israel's possession shortly after the death of King Solomon.

The Gen 15 description of the same land that was promised in Gen 13, was provided to Abraham as a sign Covenant to confirm that the whole earth would be a possession of His Saints in the distant future.

Is Jer 31:31ff a new covenant or a refreshing of the original covenant made with the Nation of Israel back at Mt Sinia which they had rejected during the 40 days that Moose was up on the Mountain talking with God. The Jewish understanding of Jer 31:31ff is that God will make like new again the Mt Sinia Covenant of a Kingdom of Priests, a Holy Nation and His Possession among the Nations which is a very different understanding that many "Christians" hold too.

But you want to hold to the many "Christian" traditions which are not ordained by God.

My Pastor has more confidence with a translation that was agreed to by a committee that one that was created by one person with no bias. Sadly, a committee is just as prone to making mistakes as a single person. Is he wrong in keeping to the "committee" approach to creating a translation, without considering the thrust of a translation created by one person without a "theological" bias.

Greater wisdom is required than what you are displaying.