Search results

But it has to come down from God out of heaven first, which clearly hasn't happened yet. Which then means, verses 6-10, which are undeniably meaning when verse 11 is meaning, can't even get fulfilled unto the NJ comes down from heaven first. Yet some of you would have us believe absurd nonsense...

If it will make everyone happy, from this point on I'm no longer going to use AI in this manner. I did not say I'm going to quit using AI. I said in this manner. Huge difference. EDITED TO ADD: On 2nd thought I decided to repent of this. Not repent of using an AI in this manner, but am...

It's obvious to me which one it is meaning. It is meaning the new Jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven. Except it hasn't arrived yet. Maybe spiritually it has in some sense, but not in the sense Revelation 21-22 is meaning, though. Therefore, in Zechariah 14, verses 6-11, 16-21...

By insight, in my case, I'm meaning things like grammar rules involving Greek and Hebrew, etc and just grammar rules in general. Surely it's going to have a vast amount of insight concerning things like that. Surely it would know if the text allows someone to do this or that within the text it...

And Pretrib just complicates it even further, unfortunately.

And here is this same AI's reply to that question I posed in #40. That's what the AI is addressing below. This same AI you insisted is clearly a gnostic futurist AI, lol. ---- This same AI I have been using throughout this thread: No, those interpreters are not correct that a *strictly...

Guess what? This AI is not even remotely saying any of those things. The AI is not taking sides. It simply delivered what I requested of it. I asked it if there is a way to interpret verses 16-20 without it meaning in a literal sense. Let me prove my point. Since I wasn't logged in at the time...

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. I can picture it happening here, then the millennium soon following. IOW, it is...

This part is true in this case, since I would be lying if I tried to deny it--- You are clearly trying to use AI to tell you how you should interpret Matthew 24:15-21 in a figurative and/or spiritual way. But even so, The AI expressed my view of that brilliantly, since it expressed what I have...

I haven't looked at that video, so all I have to go by is the description of it. Then wonder what it has to do with how I'm using an AI times, such as per this thread? Apparently, because of the warnings in that video we are supposed to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, a plain...

In regard to post # 22 and this same AI, I just concluded that session like such Me: You clearly expressed my view profoundly better than I ever could. You expressed it to a T, actually. Thank you for that. And the ironic thing about it, I'm a Premil not an Amil. And that this other person...

In regard to post #22, that AI expressed my view clearly better than I ever could. It expressed my view to a T, actually. I reject nonsense that Matthew 24:15-21 can only be meaning in the literal sense pertaining to 70 AD. And I'm not even an Amil, I'm a Premil. Therefore, you would think it...

I just had the following exchange with this AI concerning some of your disputes. The AIs replies were lengthy. So I'm only going to paste the more relevant ones. The AI responded to some of your disputes like such: This is a classic example of an internet forum poster relying on rhetorical...

That's a fair qquestion. I never asked it that, but I think I will since it is obviously relevant. What I will do then, I will reingage with this AI by submitting what it said per post #5, then some of what you said in regard to what it said per post #5. Give me time to do that first, then let's...

I never manipulated it to agree with me to begin with. It simply listened to my arguments and at times found my arguments more compelling than the typical counter arguments. But Chatgpt has been upgraded several times recently, and that there is something profoundly different about it now vs how...

I haven't looked at the video, but as to chatgpt, something about it has changed recently. All it wants to do is argue with you. I rarely engage with that now annoying chatbot anymore. There are other AIs that objectively reason through things, not argue with you about things throughout. That's...

What do you think I should label someone today that takes everything in the Discourse to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD? Should I label them futurists? Would that make you happy? That doesn't mean they might be full Preterists. It means their view of the Discourse is...

The Conclusion of the OP -------------- The AI's conclusions following it's thinking through things first: You have hit the nail directly on the head. To answer your first question directly: Yes, it is logically absurd to force a 2,000-year gap between verse 21 and verse 30 based on the text’s...

The Op continued ---------------------- Me: Wouldn't it be absurd then, thus not logical, if one takes the coming in verse 30 to be meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age, but take verses 15-21 to be involving 70 AD? They use verses 16-20 as an argument that this proves 70 AD is meant...

The Op Continued The Ai's concusions after it's thinking through these things have concluded: Setting theological debates and eschatological systems aside, if we look strictly at the grammar, syntax, and logical flow of the text, no, the text does not support that interpretation. In fact...