Should prophecy be interpreted?
Doug
where the literal reading "makes sense." David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of the Biblical Research Society, taught as his "Golden Rule of
Interpretation:" "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,
seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary,
usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context ,
studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental
truths, indicate clearly otherwise"
But is this mantra scriptural, or is it just a doctrine of man?
Dispensationalists claim that failing to interpret literally leads to
disagreement among interpreters of prophecy, but when we look at the
amazing range of views amongst dispensationalists for particular
prophecies, this argument becomes comical. For example, the locusts of
Rev. 9:1-12 were famously interpreted by Hal Lindsey as "attack
helicopters." According to him, in this prophecy, 'horses prepared for
battle' are heavily armed attack helicopters, 'crowns of gold' are the
helmets worn by pilots, and the 'sound of their wings' are the
'thunderous sound of many attack helicopters flying overhead.' The same
locusts were interpreted by another dispensationalist, H. A. Ironside, as
"Eddyism, Spiritism, and Theosophy," or the Mormons. And J. Dwight
Pentecost said they are "marching armies that torment reprobate Jews."
John N. Darby said the locusts represent "crowds of moral locusts with
the sting of false doctrine in their tail. But it was not to destroy
temporal prosperity on the earth, but to torment the ungodly Jews; not to
kill, but to harass and vex them." John F. Walvoord claimed they
represent "demons who appear in the form of locusts." Tim Lahey, in the
"Left Behind" books, interprets the locusts of Revelation 9:1-12 as
"insectlike creatures with human faces and long hair, riding horses." How
can these dispensationalist interpretations all be literal? And what does
it say about their mantra of "literalism"?
The problem is that every one of the dispensationalists cited above fails
to follow the advice of the apostle Peter, who said "no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation." They all offer their own
private interpretations in their publications.
Isaiah said that God would speak to his people in "another tongue." And
the language of prophecy is indeed another tongue or language; it is the
language of metaphor, allegory, and parable.
Isaiah 28:9-11
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand
doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Hosea also said the prophets spoke in visions, and in "similitudes."
Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
Clearly, these scriptures suggest that the prophets did not use plain
language, but they used figures of speech, such as simile, and metaphor,
and parable, and in the NT we read that when Jesus taught the people
about the kingdom of God, he invariably spoke to them in parables.
Matthew 13:34-35
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without
a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I
will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept
secret from the foundation of the world.
Thus, if we believe Isaiah, and Hosea, and follow the examples in the NT,
OT prophecy was generally not intended to be understood literally as Dr.
Cooper declared. It was intended to be interpreted. A literal reading
will thus lead to wrong conclusions, and confusion. And we can read about
several occasions in the NT where the disciples, before they received the
spirit of God, were mystified by the sayings of Jesus, and misunderstood
him, because they did not interpret his words, but took him literally.
When exhorting Christians to take heed to prophecy, the apostle Peter
said:
2 Peter 1:19-20
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye
take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day
dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.
So, what did Peter mean by "private interpretation"?
Peter showed here that prophecies of the scripture need to be
interpreted. He did not say they that prophecy should be taken literally.
He said no prophecy is of any private interpretation. This implies that
beneath the obvious sense, there is a deeper meaning, that is hidden and
might be missed.
Daniel was told by an angel, the words of his prophecies were sealed.
Daniel said he did not understand his prophecies. If even Daniel did not
understand them, how are we to take them literally? That would make
little sense, as if they were meant to be taken literally Daniel would
have no trouble understanding them. Daniel said the wicked will not
understand the prophecies, but the "wise" will.
Daniel 12:9-10
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end.
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall
do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall
understand.
If we want to understand prophecy, we need to look in scripture itself
for the interpretation of its symbols, and avoid introducing our own
interpretations. And do not trust those teachers who insist on always
taking prophecy literally, as that is not what Jesus taught his
disciples. As Joseph said, "Do not interpretations belong to
God?" [Genesis 40:8]
Writing about "The evidence to the truth of Christianity supplied by
prophecy," William Lindsay Alexander, D.D., F.R.S.E. wrote: in 1880:
<quote>
Whatever obscurity may surround a prophecy from the terms in which it is
couched, a genuine prophecy must be free from ambiguity; i.e., it must
not be so expressed that it is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one or other of which cannot but come to pass. That a
certain degree of obscurity may attach to a prophecy is presumed; nay,
more than this,--it must be obvious that, from the nature of the case, no
genuine prophecy can be other than more or less obscure when first
enunciated. For as St. Peter says, "No prophecy of Scripture is of
private interpretation,"--which may mean either that no prophecy
interprets itself, but remains obscure until it is explained by the
event, or that no prophecy is of the prophet's own interpretation, so
that though he gave the prediction he could not also give the explanation
of it; and the reason he assigns for this is, that "prophecy came not in
the old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake being moved
(or borne along) by the Holy Ghost." It thus appears that of a genuine
prophecy it is characteristic that it should be obscure, and not carry
its own interpretation in itself, or receive this from the man who utters
it; and the reason assigned for this by the Apostle is an obviously valid
one; for had the prophet spoken out of his own mind, he would, either
from inability to do otherwise, or for the sake of finding acceptance for
what he uttered from those to whom he uttered it, have spoken in a manner
which mere human intelligence would have found no difficulty in
interpreting, or would himself at least have been able to interpret what
he uttered. Whereas, as the organ of the Divine Spirit, he had to
announce what he himself understood not, and what could not be
interpreted till the fulfilment of the prediction cast back on it a
revealing light. It must be obvious also that were any prophecy to be
enunciated in terms so clear and distinct, and with such exactitude of
detail, that any person could at once perceive how it was to be
fulfilled, its evidential value would be thereby, if not destroyed,
greatly invalidated; for it might then be said that the fulfilment had
come to pass through the artifice and collusion of those who for sinister
ends desired to see it fulfilled. Whilst, then, on the one hand, there
must not be in prophecy such obscurity as would render it impossible with
any certainty to show the correspondence between the prediction and the
fulfilment, it is on the other hand necessary and desirable that the
prophecy should not be set forth so plainly that it should be subjected
to the suspicion that, being self-interpreting, it had fulfilled itself.
But whilst prophecy is thus properly and necessarily obscure, it must not
be ambiguous. And by this it stands distinguished from the utterances of
the Delphic and other oracles of heathen antiquity. These, when they
assumed the form of predictions, and were not mere pieces of prudential
counsel, were studiously ambiguous, and this was so notorious that it
provoked alike the censure of the sage and the ridicule of the satirist.
The response of the oracle to Croesus, when consulted by him as to the
issue of the war in which he purposed to engage with the Persians, as
reported by Herodotus, is well known: in this the oracle informed the
king that if he crossed the Halys he should destroy a great empire; which
might mean either the empire he was about to attack or his own, one or
other of which was pretty sure to be the result of his enterprise.
Equally well known is the still more ambiguous answer of the oracle to
Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, when purposing to engage in war with the Romans:
this was conveyed in two hexameter lines, which might with equal accuracy
be rendered either, "I say, O son of AEacus, that thou canst conquer the
Romans; thou wilt go, wilt return, never in war shalt thou perish;" or,
"I say, O son of AEacus, that the Romans can conquer thee; thou wilt go,
wilt return never, in war shalt thou perish." Such an oracle is a mere
piece of equivocation, and has no claim to be regarded as prophecy.
</quote>
[From: Credentials of Christianity, a course of lectures delivered at the
request of the Christian Evidence Society; Hodder and Stoughton, London.
1880. pp. 41-83]
--
Doug
Bear
>According to dispensationalism, most prophecy should be taken literally,
>where the literal reading "makes sense." David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
>founder of the Biblical Research Society, taught as his "Golden Rule of
>Interpretation:" "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,
>seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary,
>usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context ,
>studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental
>truths, indicate clearly otherwise"
>
>But is this mantra scriptural, or is it just a doctrine of man?
>
Doug likes to quote,
2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of
Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
However, he never includes the following verse,
2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human
will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Notice he derides some dispensationalists that disagree on some
prophecies as "their own private interpretations" yet, he has no
qualms about offering his, "own private interpretations" that includes
changing words, adding words and/or quoting them completely out of
context. I challenge everyone to read his scriptures and references
to see if you get the same meaning from them as Doug, or, does it seem
more like Doug's "private interpretation" to you. Try asking him
questions and see if you receive any verifiable answers from him.
If you agree with Doug, and are open to answering questions, I would
really enjoy a discussion with you.
When he says, "They all offer their own private interpretations in
their publications", what is it about his assertions that exempt his
from being a "private interpretation"?
May I suggest to any reading posts by Doug that you diligently
research and verify his statements? I think you will find that many
times the scriptures, or his referenced sources, do not say what Doug
proclaims them saying.
He gets so upset about having his doctrine challenged when he knows
fully well that he cannot offer any evidence proving it factual and
has to blatantly lie and consistently use deception in his arguments?
I believe the quotes below are a representative example.
Doug's quote�.
"And how else should the prophets designated the age of the church,
that was meant to have been kept secret, according to Jesus himself?"
Then, he quotes this verse�.
"Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times
or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."
What a stupid statement for him to make, even the verse he quoted
proves the idiocy of it. Not one word in it about the church and the
preceding verse,
Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him,
saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to
Israel?" �
clearly states that it was about restoring the kingdom to Israel. Oh
yea, he thinks every time Israel is mentioned it is actually referring
to the church. Another assertion that is only in his mind and one that
he cannot prove by answering this question, OK, can you show, with
scripture, where the church ever had a kingdom to restore?
Did the "apostles and writers" not also believe that the Lord was
about to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time as their question
in Acts 1:6 suggests? Did the apostles not believe that the "kingdom"
that the Lord was speaking of was the "kingdom to Israel? Did the
Lord tell them that it was about the kingdom of the church, not
Israel? Not unless one breaks this command�
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those
who take refuge in Him.
Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you
will be proved a liar.
As for as I am concerned, scripture, with the generous help of Doug,
proves Doug to be a "liar". He consistently adds, deletes and/or
changes words in scripture trying to support his blasphemous views.
If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that it
seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
evidence proving me wrong? If he cannot do so, then the question
should be, "why does he insist upon continuing to falsely portray the
word of God"? What is his agenda and does he have the best interest
for the souls of others at heart? Why does he feel it necessary to
repeatedly use deception and untruths in his arguments?
Hmmmm, I have a theory��.
Bear
Ike E 10/29/09
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:S_-dnRBctb9uvm_X...@sentex.net...
> According to dispensationalism, most prophecy should be taken literally,
And according to Idealism, NO prophecy should be taken literally, which
makes you BOTH fools.
[snip]
Ike
vince garcia
I was thinking the same things as I read his post! All he's doing is
giving HIS OWN private interpretation of what the Bible means!
What hypocrisy
Bear
Hello Vince,
Doug demonstrates his hypocrisy often but it does not seem to bother
him at all.
Bear
vince garcia
I guess not. And I guess that unless he is catholic, he misses that ANY
pastor, theologian, or Bible teacher HAS to give his "own private
interpretation' of what the scriptures mean, beause they require
explanation, and since God has not established an infallible interpreter
(unless you're catholic and believe it's the teaching magisterium),
there is no other way to do it
Ike E 10/29/09
"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ati5f5tehebq9pfkb...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Doug demonstrates his hypocrisy often but it does not seem to bother
> him at all.
That's strange: You seem to have the same problem.
Ike
Bear
Doug
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <4AF2D1...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Bear wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:44:52 -0800, vince garcia
>> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bear wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:01:39 -0600, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >According to dispensationalism, most prophecy should be taken
>> >> >literally, where the literal reading "makes sense." David L. Cooper
>> >> >(1886-1965), founder of the Biblical Research Society, taught as
>> >> >his "Golden Rule of Interpretation:" "When the plain sense of
>> >> >Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take
>> >> >every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless
>> >> >the facts of the immediate context , studied in the light of
>> >> >related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate
>> >> >clearly otherwise"
>> >> >
>> >> >But is this mantra scriptural, or is it just a doctrine of man?
>> >> >
<snip>
>>
>> Hello Vince,
>>
>> Doug demonstrates his hypocrisy often but it does not seem to bother
>> him at all.
>>
>> Bear
>
>
> I guess not. And I guess that unless he is catholic, he misses that ANY
> pastor, theologian, or Bible teacher HAS to give his "own private
> interpretation' of what the scriptures mean, beause they require
> explanation, and since God has not established an infallible interpreter
> (unless you're catholic and believe it's the teaching magisterium),
> there is no other way to do it
The magisterium represents only one of about 38,000 denominations, each
having some set of beliefs that are considered special by their members,
or their leaders. The point is, that the apostle Peter, and scripture,
declares "private" interpretations to be invalid. Vince's response
contradicts what Peter said.
David L. Cooper made no attempt to use scripture itself to interpret the
prophecy of Ezek. 38 & 39, which he imagined describes an attack by
Russia and other nations upon Israel. When discussing the weapons of the
invaders, spears, shields, bucklers, swords, bows and arrows, Cooper
said:
<quote>
When one speaks to another, he must use terms with which the latter is
familiar. In an effort to impart knowledge concerning something that is
novel or strange, one must either use familiar terms which are known to
both speaker and hearer, or he must by comparison express his ideas. Even
then such analogies must be within the realm of the knowledge of the
listener. In view of this principle it becomes very evident that Ezekiel
had to speak of the future weapons of warfare in terms of those with
which his auditors were familiar. Had he spoken of airplanes or machine
guns, he would have had to speak of them in known terms, comparing them
with familiar objects, or the Lord would have had to coin names for them,
which still would have been unintelligible. This He did not choose to do.
</quote>
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page533.html
Cooper here appears to transgress or ignore his own "Golden Rule of
Interpretation," and this was remarked upon by Gary DeMar in "Why the End
of the World is Not in Your Future," p. 47.
Cooper quoted Isaiah 2:1-4, a prophecy that the nations will "beat their
swords into plowshares," and commented:
<quote>
The prophet looked forward to the time of the coming of the Lord when he
will cause all wars to cease. There will, therefore, be no need for
weapons of warfare. But there will be a great demand for implements of
agriculture. Hence Isaiah said that men will beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks. Are we to infer from his
statement that the processes of manufacturing agricultural implements
will be abandoned and that a primitive method of beating the metal into
the shape desired will be adopted? Such a thought is preposterous. In the
millennium, of which the passage speaks, there will be no occasion for a
reversion to primitive methods of manufacturing objects. To interpret
this language literally and thus to infer that the methods of
manufacturing implements of agriculture now employed will be laid aside
and the primitive process of shaping by beating will be adopted is to
reduce this sublime prophecy to an utter absurdity. The plain sense,
therefore, of the wording of the passage makes nonsense. Hence we must
accept that interpretation which will accord with all the facts known,
not only of this context, but also of the general sweep of Scripture.
Since one must use the language understood by those addressed, we must
believe that Isaiah was speaking of the cessation of war and of
converting the materials that had been employed in the manufacture of
weapons into agricultural implements, putting his message into terms that
his audience comprehended. In the same way we must understand Ezekiel to
be employing his terms relating to weapons of warfare.
This conclusion is likewise confirmed by a careful study of Joel 2:3-11.
When this paragraph is studied carefully, it is absolutely certain that
the prophet was speaking of a modern mechanized army, such as is used at
the present time or may be developed by military science and engineers.
At the time of the final restoration of Israel to the land of her
fathers, dirigibles and aeroplanes will be in use, because Isaiah
foretold this fact. "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves
to their windows?" (Isa. 60:8). The prophet saw the children of Israel
flying as a cloud and as a dove. The flying is literal. For the reason
stated above, and others that might be given, I am of the firm conviction
that one must take the language of Ezekiel as referring to the weapons
that will be used in the future but he expressed his thought in terms
with which his audience was familiar. In my opinion there is, therefore,
no reference to, nor authority for, one's interpreting this passage as a
prediction that there will be a return to the use of primitive weapons.
</quote>
So Cooper claimed that the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 & 39, Joel 2:3-11,
and Isa. 60:8, all refer to modern weapons of warfare, depicted in
symbolic language. Doesn't this negate his own mantra for interpreting
prophecy, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no
other sense"? Seems to me, claiming to follow such a rule, while
declaring Ezekiel 38 & 39, Joel 2:3-11, and Isa. 60:8 are all about
modern mechanized warfare is being hypocritical and deceitful.
When Cooper discussed his rules for interpretation, he mentioned the fact
that some see types of the church and the Spirit of God in the story of
Abraham's servant and his journey to bring back a bride for Isaac.
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page8.html
SOME BASIC RULES OF INTERPRETATION
<quote>
As one examines the types and shadows of the Scriptures, one must be
extremely careful not to read into the sacred text something that is not
there. A person will do well if he takes as symbolic and typical only
those things that are thus recognized by the inspired writers.
Untold damage has been done from time to time by overly zealous people in
their attempts to see a typical or a symbolic meaning in certain persons
or things in the Scriptures. The safest rule by which to be guided on
this point may be stated thus: Recognize only those things as typical or
symbolic which are thus designated in the Scriptures, and never give to
any passage a typical meaning unless the Scriptures so indicate. To
illustrate the point let us look at an example or two. Joseph, we are
often told, is a type of Christ. Isaac's taking Rebekah as his bride is
also a type of Christ's taking His bride, the church. What inspired
writer gives any intimation to this effect? I have never seen anything in
the Scriptures to warrant these positions. I admit that there are
striking similarities in the cases; but analogies are not equivalent to a
"thus saith the Lord." We do well, therefore, to have scriptural
authority for whatever we say. One can, by allowing his imagination to
run wild, see that a certain person or thing in the Old Testament is
typical of something in the New. Another person, looking at the same
thing, will see a different signification. Thus there are untold
possibilities of speculation and error, which are dangerous whenever
there is not a "thus saith the Lord" for a given position.
</quote>
Comparing this warning about not "allowing his imagination to run wild"
to his own interpretation of the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 & 39, Joel
2:3-11, and Isa. 60:8 as descriptions of modern mechanized warfare,
machine guns, and airplanes, etc., is simply amazing!
On the story of Abraham's servant finding a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24,
dispensationalist Jack Kelley writes:
<quote>
This is about as good a model of the relationship between the Father, the
Son, Israel, and the Church as you'll find anywhere in scripture. ...
I Spoke To The Prophets, Gave Them Many Visions, And Told Parables
Through Them (Hosea 12:10)
After God the Father had received His Son back from death, Jesus ascended
into heaven and disappeared from Earth. Later the Father presided over
the death and burial of His beloved Israel. He also sent an unnamed
Servant into the Earth in search of a bride for His Son. This Servant,
The Holy Spirit, is called The Comforter by Jesus in John 16:7 KJV but is
known by no other name. (Although Abraham's servant is not named in Gen.
24, a few chapters earlier he is identified as Eliezer a name that
roughly translates "God is our comforter" Gen.15:2).
The Holy Spirit seeks out supernaturally identified people (He knew us
before the foundation of the Earth was laid) asking us to become the
Bride of Christ, investing us with gifts when we agree (Ephe. 1:13-14 and
1 Cor. 12:7-11). We must decide immediately to leave our familiar life,
and embark upon a spiritual journey of unknown duration with the
comforter as our guide to marry a husband we have never seen. On a day
and hour previously unknown to us our Betrothed will come out to meet us
(1 Thes. 4:16-17), The Holy Spirit will usher us into the presence of the
true Well of Living Water, and upon meeting Him face to face for the
first time we will wed. And now you know the adult version.
</quote>
http://gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories-for-adults/isaac-and-rebecca-
the-gospel-in-genesis-part-2/
Evidently Jack Kelley had not noticed Cooper's warning against such extra-
biblical interpretations, or he rightly disregarded it.
Kelley points out that Abraham's servant is identified as Eliezer, which
he declares is a name that roughly translates "God is our comforter"
Gen.15:2. "Comforter" was how Jesus referred to the holy Spirit.
In the NT, Eliezer corresponds to "Lazarus" who is depicted as a poor
beggar in one of the parables of Jesus, while the Jewish nation is
depicted as a rich man. In this parable there seems to be a contrast made
between the holy Spirit and the spirit of Judaism and Zionism. Lazarus
was also the name of the friend of Jesus who he raised up from the dead
on the fourth day.
When a dispensationalist and Zionist like Cooper declares he is
"absolutely certain" about a far-fetched interpretation of a prophecy,
red flags should go up! Cooper wrote of Joel 2:3-11: "When this paragraph
is studied carefully, it is absolutely certain that the prophet was
speaking of a modern mechanized army, such as is used at the present time
or may be developed by military science and engineers." Of course, this
statement is completely misguided; Cooper followed a seducing spirits
such as Paul against in 1 Tim. 4:1, and disregarded what Peter said about
"private" interpretations.
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, after they received the law at
Sinai, Moses sent out twelve spies to survey the promised land they were
to inherit. They all reported that it was a fruitful land, but ten of
them came back saying that there were giants living there, who were so
big, they were like grasshoppers in comparison. [Numb. 13:27-33]
Numb. 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:
and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their
sight.
Locusts are grasshoppers, and Joel's prophecy about a locust plague is
about the church. Peter referred to Joel's prophecies on the day of
Pentecost when the disciples received the holy Spirit. The locusts in
Joel's prophecy should be understood as a description of the church in
the day of the Lord.
Paul showed in his letter to the Corinthians that the experience of the
Israelites was an example for the church. He wrote:
1 Corinthians 10:1-6
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that
all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were
overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust
after evil things, as they also lusted.
The people who came out from Egypt lacked faith, and so they had to
wander in the wilderness for the rest of their lives, and only when they
had all died in the desert, except for Joshua and Caleb, were the
Israelites able to enter in.
Their experience provides several figures for the benefit of the church,
as Paul showed. The prophet Joel foretold the desolate state of the
church, which he compared to the locust plague, as the Israelites under
Moses had identified themselves as locusts, and so that theme is applied
to Christians, in both the Old and New Testaments.
Paul warned about lusting after evil things, fornication, tempting
Christ, and murmuring or complaining, which brought God's wrath upon the
Israelites. The author of Hebrews also mentions their disbelief.
Hebrews 3:15-18
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came
out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that
had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to
them that believed not?
Misguided locusts are described in Revelation 9 as a great "woe" or
plague in the earth, as Christians who lack faith in God certainly are,
and have been throughout the history of the church.
--
Doug
Bear
If Doug is so spiritual and knowledgeable, why is it that he cannot
answer questions that validate his preaching? Why does he refuse to
engage in a debate using only scripture? The answer to that question,
I believe, is because he does not believe the Bible is the inspired
word of God, so what is his agenda?
Doug
article <5488f5p9gr8pnjmme...@4ax.com>:
The answer is because Ted's questions are invariably off topic, and his
posts are clearly trolls as he admits.
Samuele Bacchiocchi's book, "Hal Lindsey's Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle" notes
that Lindsey's views are based on two mistaken principles of prophetic
interpretation. The dispensational interpretation of Biblical prophecies
is based on two determinative principles, known as (1) "consistent
literalism" and (2) a permanent distinction between Israel and the Church.
Consistent Literalism. On the basis of the principle of consistent
literalism, Old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel,
the rebuilding of the temple, and the reinstitution of animal sacrifices
must be fulfilled in a literal way to the Jewish nation in Palestine
during the "terminal generation" which began in 1948, and especially
during the last seven-year countdown.
According to Bacchiocchi, "the principle of consistent literalism fails
adequately to interpret Biblical prophecy because it ignores the
progressive nature of God's revelation; it disregards the Messianic and
expanding fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; and it contradicts
itself through its inconsistent interpretation of Biblical prophecies."
"Israel and the Church. On the basis of the second principle of a
permanent distinction between Israel and the Church, many Old Testament
prophecies regarding the Jews must be fulfilled at the end of time in and
through a literal Israel, because what the Scripture says about Israel
cannot be applied to the Church and vice versa."
"Regarding the second principle, it must be said that though the New
Testament sometimes does speak of Jews in distinction from Gentiles, it
never teaches or implies that God has in mind a separate future for
Israel in distinction to that planned for the Church."
"In the New Testament the church lives, not as a new olive tree, but as
new olive branches grafted into the one olive tree of the Israel of God
(Rom 11:17-24). The future of Israel is seen in the New Testament, not
in terms of a millennial political kingdom in Palestine, but in terms of
everlasting blessedness shared together with the redeemed of all ages in
a restored new earth."
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/jigsaw_puzzle/4.html
--
Doug
vince garcia
I didn't know Bacchiocchi was an infallible source. Since you quoite
him, I suppose he is the only one who doesn't give HIS own personal
interpetation to the scriptures, right? He was a sabbatarian too. Are
we required to be sabbatarians to be Christians as well? Do you teach
sabbatariansim?
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
The Futurist position cannot be Scripturally supported
and always ends up contradicting itself and its supporters
always end up having to play word games and always
refuse to confess to a presented Scriptural fact.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If the works are of perversity then the mouth's claim
of faith is void." - Unknown
Bear
Here it is again, the "pastor" making accusations that he cannot
prove.
This is brilliant coming from the one who says, "The last days were in
the first century", however, he cannot answer questions pertaining to
dozens of prophecies that have not been fulfilled to date, which he
admits to in the following quote.
"I did reply to his claim about Ezekiel. It wouldn't matter even if I
couldn't answer that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen yet. It only
means that Dave doesn't know the answer!"
And neither does any preterist, I have asked a number of them many
questions that they cannot answer.
Bear
Bear
It seems every time Doug posts, he reinforces his lunacy and
dishonesty and his statement above is a prime example of it.
Here are 12 questions that I have asked in this thread, on topic, that
Doug's only response is, "�Ted's questions are invariably off topic".
1. "�, why is it that he cannot answer questions that validate his
preaching?"
2. "Why does he refuse to engage in a debate using only scripture?
3. "�so what is his agenda?"
4. "When he says, "They all offer their own private interpretations
in their publications", what is it about his assertions that exempts
his from being a "private interpretation"?
5. "OK, can you show, with scripture, where the church ever had a
kingdom to restore?
Question 5-8 comes from a quote of scripture made by Doug and pertains
to his quote. Off topic?
6. "Did the "apostles and writers" not also believe that the Lord was
about to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time as their question
in Acts 1:6 suggests?
7. "Did the apostles not believe that the "kingdom" that the Lord was
speaking of was the "kingdom to Israel?
8. "Did the Lord tell them that it was about the kingdom of the
church, not Israel?
9. "If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being
that it seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an
argument and evidence proving me wrong?
10. "If he cannot do so, then the question should be, "why does he
insist upon continuing to falsely portray the word of God"?
11. "What is his agenda and does he have the best interest for the
souls of others at heart?
12. "Why does he feel it necessary to repeatedly use deception and
untruths in his arguments?
These are questions asked directly of Doug in response to his post,
or, about Doug, from his post. Therefore, how can they be off topic"?
So prove that you have an once of integrity Doug and answer the
questions, rather than trying to present a lamb brained excuse for not
doing so. Which only reinforces your ludicrous statement.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those
who take refuge in Him.
Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you
will be proved a liar.
As for as I am concerned, scripture, with the generous help of Doug,
proves Doug to be a "liar". He consistently adds, deletes and/or
changes words in scripture trying to support his blasphemous views.
If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that it
seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
evidence proving me wrong? If he cannot do so, then the question
should be, "why does he insist upon continuing to falsely portray the
word of God"? What is his agenda and does he have the best interest
for the souls of others at heart? Why does he feel it necessary to
repeatedly use deception and untruths in his arguments?
Hmmmm, I have a theory��.
Bear
Randy ®
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> The Futurist position cannot be Scripturally supported
> and always ends up contradicting itself and its supporters
> always end up having to play word games and always
> refuse to confess to a presented Scriptural fact.
I've never seen Dave support these claims with any convincing proof.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Bear
wrote:
So how does Doug explain that his questions to me that I answered and
then asked him the same questions, that he refused to answer, are "off
topic". His ludicrously does not seem to bother him in the least.
Doug has no hesitation in posting multitudes of his "clatter noise"
but he is completely inept when it comes to addressing points of his
dishonesty. How pathetic!
Bear
Doug
article <k6taf55ftvnmirkrs...@4ax.com>:
Why not ignore abusive spam, and defamation? What does this have to do
with the subject? It is obviously a troll!
>
> Here are 12 questions that I have asked in this thread, on topic, that
> Doug's only response is, "…Ted's questions are invariably off topic".
>
> 1. "…, why is it that he cannot answer questions that validate his
> preaching?"
Usually, Ted's questions are off topic. He admits to being a troll. Don't
you, Ted?
http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-a-Troll-on-the-Internet
A troll is someone that deliberately seeks attention by causing arguments
and disruption. Here's how to recognize one:
1. Evaluate the intent of certain comments. Look for:
* Intentional, provocative, incendiary messages.
* Passionate debates of inflammatory topics.
* Attacks to various members of the community.
* Discussions focused on nonsense, in the hope that others will
interact.
* Flooding, screaming and disruption of chat channels.
2. Check their profile and history. Look for:
* An anonymous user.
* Previous ridiculous comments.
3. Ignore a troll and they will go away.
* If you reply, you are giving them the attention they seek.
* Do not feed the trolls by directly arguing with them.
4. If they persist or you are being harassed:
* Contact an administrator of the site you are using. Or look
in the terms of service for ways to report troublesome behavior.
The above recommendation is "Ignore a troll and they will go away."
That's your answer to #1.
>
> 2. "Why does he refuse to engage in a debate using only scripture?
See #3 above: "Do not feed the trolls by directly arguing with them."
Also see 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16.
>
> 3. "…so what is his agenda?"
See Luke 12:31.
>
> 4. "When he says, "They all offer their own private interpretations in
> their publications", what is it about his assertions that exempts his
> from being a "private interpretation"?
Scripture interprets itself. For example, "horses" in prophecy are not
attack helicopters, as Hal Lindsey says, but the symbols can be
interpreted from Psa. 32:9, and from Jer. 5:8.
>
> 5. "OK, can you show, with scripture, where the church ever had a
> kingdom to restore?
The saints are in the kingdom of Christ, and they are called the holy
city and the heavenly Jerusalem. In Acts, James refers to the church as
the "tabernacle of David," which was to be "built again." This refers to
the church too.
Acts 15:13-17.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of
David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the
Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all
these things.
>
> Question 5-8 comes from a quote of scripture made by Doug and pertains
> to his quote. Off topic?
>
> 6. "Did the "apostles and writers" not also believe that the Lord was
> about to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time as their question in
> Acts 1:6 suggests?
They probably did believe in an earthly kingdom, at that time, but that
was before they received the gift of the Spirit, and so their
understanding was limited. Several days later, in Acts 2:36, Peter said,
being inspired by the Spirit, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know
assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Christ."
He recognized that Christ had become Lord of all, and that the believers
were the citizens in his kingdom.
>
> 7. "Did the apostles not believe that the "kingdom" that the Lord was
> speaking of was the "kingdom to Israel?
Those who believe in Christ have been "translated" into Christ's kingdom,
Paul said.
Col. 1:12-14
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers
of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated
us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins:
>
> 8. "Did the Lord tell them that it was about the kingdom of the church,
> not Israel?
Jesus said:
Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of
God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
The kingdom is something we need to seek, as "a man seeking goodly
pearls." Jesus said, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God." [Mat. 6:33]
>
> 9. "If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that
> it seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
> evidence proving me wrong?
Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." [Mat 5:39]
>
> 10. "If he cannot do so, then the question should be, "why does he
> insist upon continuing to falsely portray the word of God"?
See above.
>
> 11. "What is his agenda and does he have the best interest for the
> souls of others at heart?
Titus 2:11-15
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no
man despise thee.
>
> 12. "Why does he feel it necessary to repeatedly use deception and
> untruths in his arguments?
Dispensationalism is a deception. Why else would the dispensationalists
have to resort to nasty defamatory attacks, instead of addressing the
issues?
>
> These are questions asked directly of Doug in response to his post, or,
> about Doug, from his post. Therefore, how can they be off topic"?
>
> So prove that you have an once of integrity Doug and answer the
> questions, rather than trying to present a lamb brained excuse for not
> doing so. Which only reinforces your ludicrous statement.
>
> Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those
> who take refuge in Him.
>
> Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you
> will be proved a liar.
>
> As for as I am concerned, scripture, with the generous help of Doug,
> proves Doug to be a "liar". He consistently adds, deletes and/or
> changes words in scripture trying to support his blasphemous views.
>
> If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that it
> seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
> evidence proving me wrong? If he cannot do so, then the question should
> be, "why does he insist upon continuing to falsely portray the word of
> God"? What is his agenda and does he have the best interest for the
> souls of others at heart? Why does he feel it necessary to repeatedly
> use deception and untruths in his arguments?
>
> Hmmmm, I have a theory…….
>
> Bear
--
Doug
Doug
article <u35bf5t0hrsls3n0h...@4ax.com>:
Ted admits to being a troll. Here is what one site recommends:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2090771_ignore-message-board-trolls.html
Step 1: Realize that their messages are a waste of time and energy.
Letting Internet message board trolls get under a person's skin is an
effort in futility. What they post on message boards is not about you. Do
not take it personally.
Step 2: Understand that message board trolls do it for the attention. If
they are given that attention, it just fuels their passion to post
annoying information. If there is no reward, they will eventually go away
or stop posting.
Step 3: Understand that message board trolls are all about themselves.
What they post is about them and not specific related to the topic they
are expounding on. The statements a troll makes may be asinine and make
your blood boil, but understand it will impossible to change their minds
or alter their views. The troll is posting on a topic specifically for
the attention and not about that specific topic.
Step 4: Leave the message for a few days. Often these trolls become bored
and leave or get banned from the community after a few days. Putting the
keyboard down and just walking away is often the best solution.
Step 5: Ask the moderator to ban the message board troll. While this is
not totally ignoring the troll, it does not give them the satisfaction of
a direct response. With enough requests, the user will be banned and the
problem will be solved.
<snip>
--
Doug
Doug
The dispensationalists tout "literalism" but can't agree what the
"literal" interpretation is! Their opinions are often really comical,
especially about the prophecies about the locusts in Joel 1 & 2 and Rev.
9:1-11.
David L. Cooper wrote of Joel 2:3-11: "When this paragraph is studied
carefully, it is absolutely certain that the prophet was speaking of a
modern mechanized army, such as is used at the present time or may be
developed by military science and engineers."
Interesting that the things they are most adamant about are their
delusions.
--
Doug
Doug
in article <3MCdnSbzJ-gx5mjX...@giganews.com>:
> On Sat, 11/07/09, at 6:36:11AM,
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Futurist position cannot be Scripturally supported and always ends
>> up contradicting itself and its supporters always end up having to play
>> word games and always refuse to confess to a presented Scriptural fact.
>
>
> I've never seen Dave support these claims with any convincing proof.
He was probably making an observation based on his own experience.
--
Doug
Doug
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <4AF561...@ix.netcom.com>:
I did not say or imply Dr. Bacchiocchi was "infallible." Do you only
quote infallible sources? Neither did I suggest Jack Kelley is
infallible, when I quoted him. As for whether Jack Kelley is a
sabbatarian, I don't know. Why would it matter? Why would it matter if
Bacchiocchi was? I think he was a prof at an SDA college.
--
Doug
vince garcia
You most certainly did imply it! You began this post with a rather
arrogant rant about people using their "own private interpretations" of
the scriptures. You were soundly rebuked for that attitude by both bear
and I, who pointed out that unless you affirm that there is an
infallible source to exposit scripture, anyone--whether you agree or
disagree with them--MUST give their "own private interpretations" of the
scriptures the second they open their mouths to explain some passage. It
doesn't matter if they're talking about baptism, the deity of Christ,
the plan of salvation, or eschatology--unless you can point to an
infallible bible expositor, anyone who explains any subject is
invariably giving SOMEONE's "own private interpretations" OF the
subject, whether it's Calvin's, Luther's, David koresh's, or someone
else's.
In the case of Bacchiocchi, he is demonstrably a false teacher because
he is a member of a questionable denomination that often teaches a
heretical sabbatarian viewpoint, so to cite HIS opinion as somehow
authoritative is ludicrous.
I once challenegd him to debate his sabbatarian views, but he did not
take me up on it, so I shake my head at your using him as one of your
sources.
Every time you quote your own opinion, right or wrong...or someone
else's opinion, right or wrong, you really make yourself out to be a
hypocrite for the reasons we've stated--unless you think YOUR opinion OR
THEIRS is infallible. Example...
ME: "Doug--what did Paul mean when he said, 'Do we then make void the
law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.'?"
Doug: "Well, I think he meant..."
You've just given me your "own private interpretation".
So who the heck are YOU? Why are you giving me your own "own private
interpretation" of what paul said? I want an answer from you that is NOT
your "own private interpretation".
Give me one...
I'm not taking issue with your theology on the subject; merely the your
"own private interpretations" comments that are utterly ridiculous
unless you can point to someone with divine authority to take the bible
and infallibly explain what this passage or that means.
Do you only
> quote infallible sources? Neither did I suggest Jack Kelley is
> infallible, when I quoted him. As for whether Jack Kelley is a
> sabbatarian, I don't know. Why would it matter? Why would it matter if
> Bacchiocchi was?
If I held that no one should give their "own private interpretations" on
a verse, and then quoted David Koresh, would it matter?
Doug
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <4AF5D6...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Every time you quote your own opinion, right or wrong...or someone
> else's opinion, right or wrong, you really make yourself out to be a
> hypocrite for the reasons we've stated--unless you think YOUR opinion OR
> THEIRS is infallible.
Some quotes are memorable, and this is certainly one to keep!
Here is a comment on a dilemma in dispensationalism by Jack Kettler,
written in 1999:
<quote>
Dispensational eschatology cannot escape the dilemma, on the one hand, of
having great excitement about the Jews going to Israel and, on the other
hand, knowing those millions will soon die during the seven-year
tribulation. Should we warn those in danger? Where is the dispensational
clarion call warning those to flee before the Jewish Hitler-like ruler
emerges? The silence is deafening. Surely it follows that
dispensationalists are not really concerned about this future slaughter
of the Jewish people. After pouring untold millions of tourist dollars
into the modern state of Israel, it would seem that dispensational
leaders would at least pressure Israeli leaders into opening up their
country to Christian missionary activity. At least this way the Jews have
a chance of accepting Christ before being slaughtered.
The dispensationalist is caught in a contradiction between the moral
imperative to warn those in danger, and his excitement at the re-
gathering of those about to be slaughtered. It is no good to say that God
will use this slaughter to save all Israel as Romans 11:26 teaches. What
about the millions who will die during this rule by the anti-Christ? Are
they saved? On what grounds can they be? Having faith in Christ is how
people are saved. Dying at the hands of a tyrant does not qualify as a
substitute for saving faith. Supposedly during this terrible tribulation,
Israel will be surrounded and hard pressed, because there will be no
avenue of escape. This impending calamity will be a contributing factor
in Israel's conversion to Christ. Why? After the children of Israel were
delivered from Pharaoh's army, they ended up in the wilderness for forty
years as a result of unbelief. When faced with life threatening
situations, people will in desperation call upon God. This phenomenon is
appropriately called foxhole faith. Miraculous events do not convey any
kind of guarantee that regeneration will take place. See the story of the
rich man and Lazarus for more confirmation of this, Luke 16:19-29.
According to dispensationalism, only at the end of the seven-year
tribulation, when Christ destroys the anti-Christ and returns, will the
Jewish people accept him as their Messiah. How can it be said that all
Israel is saved according to this view? The anti-Christ and his forces
have just killed millions who were not saved. Surely it follows that the
dispensationalists are not honestly portraying their real beliefs when
talking about all Israel being saved. They never tell their Jewish
friends about the millions of Jews that they know will be slaughtered.
</quote>
http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/kettler/jk_dispensationalism.pdf
--
Doug
vince garcia
Thank you for giving me Jack Kettler's OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION on the
proper way to handle the topic of eschatology.
Thank you for giving me Jack Kettler's OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION on the
parable in Luke.
Thank you for giving me Jack Kettler's OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION on
Romans 11
Bear
Imagine that, I thought Doug said that scripture was not supposed to
have one's "own private interpretation". Oh shucks, I forgot, that is
only for others, not himself.
Bear
vince garcia
It is amazing how many people who come here, demonzing and belittling
others for their arguable views on nonessential issues prove they are
actually Romans 2:1 people when they attack them so.
In other words, hypocrites
Bear
>> Doug's only response is, "?Ted's questions are invariably off topic".
>>
>> 1. "?, why is it that he cannot answer questions that validate his
>> preaching?"
>
>Usually, Ted's questions are off topic. He admits to being a troll. Don't
>you, Ted?
>
Well Doug, why do you not for once lend some credibility to your
accusations and quote me admitting to being a troll, or at least
provide a link? You are very good at misquoting people, as I have
proven a number of times. Prove it, and if you cannot, then just
throw another one on your pile of lies.
>http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-a-Troll-on-the-Internet
>A troll is someone that deliberately seeks attention by causing arguments
>and disruption. Here's how to recognize one:
>
Folks, what this means to Doug is, a troll is someone that challenges
his bogus replacement theology and insists upon him proving with
unadulterated scripture that what he asserts is true.
> 1. Evaluate the intent of certain comments. Look for:
> * Intentional, provocative, incendiary messages.
You give some of my examples of this, then I will list yours.
> * Passionate debates of inflammatory topics.
I admit to being "passionate" about the accuracy of scripture,
however, there is no debate with you, you only want to preach your
blasphemous doctrine and not have to be held accountable for your
comments.
> * Attacks to various members of the community.
As I have challenged you many times, prove where I have made false
statements about you, then I will do the same for you.
> * Discussions focused on nonsense, in the hope that others will
>interact.
Same challenge as the preceding one.
> * Flooding, screaming and disruption of chat channels.
Prove where I have attempted any of this.
> 2. Check their profile and history. Look for:
> * An anonymous user.
Yea, do that, I have a profile telling who I am and what I believe,
see what you can find about Doug in his profile.
> * Previous ridiculous comments.
Again Doug, you post some of my ridiculous comments and then I will
provide a list of yours. You know, all of that clickity clatter
childish garbage.
> 3. Ignore a troll and they will go away.
So why do you not do that Doug? Which one of us responded to the
other's post first?
> * If you reply, you are giving them the attention they seek.
Why do you reply then if you think I am a troll? Besides, I have
offered previously to stop my responses to your posts, remember?
I believe my accusations are proven accurate by your refusal to
address the challenges I have presented. Just as an example;
Here is a perfect opportunity for Doug to demonstrate his integrity
and to show that my accusations about him are wrong but he declines to
do so. His quietness Is almost deafening with what it shouts.
I WILL MAKE ONE PROMISE UNILATERALLY, YOU REFUTE EACH ONE OF THE
ACCUSATIONS I MAKE IN THE CAVEAT WITH PROOF THAT MY ACCUSATIONS ARE
FALSE AND I WILL IMMEDIATELY REFRAIN FROM USING IT.
In the event you choose not to do this, then I, and I would assume
most, will interpret your refusal as an admission that the accusations
I make are not false and you are guilty of the offenses.
However, I WILL OFFER A COMPROMISE TO YOU, YOU REFRAIN FROM THOSE
TACTICS AND ONLY POST COMMENTS YOU CAN PROVE WITH UNADULTERATED
SCRIPTURE AND I PROMISE TO NOT POST THE CAVEAT ABOUT YOU.
> * Do not feed the trolls by directly arguing with them.
In Doug's case, this means, do not answer any questions that make you
look foolish.
> 4. If they persist or you are being harassed:
> * Contact an administrator of the site you are using. Or look
>in the terms of service for ways to report troublesome behavior.
>
So why do you not do this Doug? Surely you must not be the only
whiner in the group, start a partition.
>The above recommendation is "Ignore a troll and they will go away."
>
They will also go away if you can provide proof of what you assert and
stop being dishonest.
>That's your answer to #1.
>
No, that is the best excuse that you can come up with and just more
accusations and innuendos that you cannot prove.
For a while, Doug was frequently accusing me of being a "cult",
however, when he provided a list of what a "cult" entailed, it proved
him to be one and not me. Even though I have posted his definition
and pointed out the differences a number of times, he has never once
responded to it and has ceased making that accusation, very telling
about Doug's integrity, I believe.
>>
>> 2. "Why does he refuse to engage in a debate using only scripture?
>
>See #3 above: "Do not feed the trolls by directly arguing with them."
>
>Also see 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16.
>
OK, here they are.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you,
avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what
is falsely called "knowledge"-
2 Timothy 2:16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead
to further ungodliness,
Now, why do you not provide some quotes where I have inappropriately
quoted scripture and/or made "worldly empty chatter"?
OTOH, how about this for you?
"CLATTER CLATTER Crawl back under CLATTER GROWL your CLATTER rock
SNARL Satan, CLATTER you're GROWL no CLATTER longer making CLATTER
HISS a GROWL GROWL fool of CLATTER only Doug. SNARL You're CLATTER
CLATTER HISS making CLATTER as big SNARL a fool CLATTER GROWL GROWL of
CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER yourself, GROWL HISS too. CLATTER CLATTER
CLATTER You GROWL CLATTER won't deceive CLATTER CLATTER anyone HISS
CLATTER CLATTER when HISS you've convinced CLATTER them you're as
CLATTER foolish CLATTER HISS
as GROWL Doug."
Would you like to explain how this does not qualify for "empty
chatter"?
>>
>> 3. "?so what is his agenda?"
>
>See Luke 12:31.
>
Luke 12:31 "But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to
you.
Can you explain just how you are seeking "His kingdom" when you
obviously do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?
>>
>> 4. "When he says, "They all offer their own private interpretations in
>> their publications", what is it about his assertions that exempts his
>> from being a "private interpretation"?
>
>Scripture interprets itself. For example, "horses" in prophecy are not
>attack helicopters, as Hal Lindsey says, but the symbols can be
>interpreted from Psa. 32:9, and from Jer. 5:8.
>
Doug cannot get through a post without quoting, or perhaps misquoting
would be a better word, someone that he can ridicule. Why can he not
just stay with what scripture says, or at least the person he is
responding to? Can you provide a quote where Lindsey adamantly
claimed that horses are "attack helicopters"? I have heard him say
that it "could" be describing such; however, I have never heard him
claim it to be certain. Doug has a habit of ascribing statements to
people and changing their words to suit his agenda.
Doug likes to pick out words in one place, of his choosing, in
scripture and then tries to apply the meaning to every place that word
is used.
Psalm 32:8 I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you
should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you.
Psalm 32:9 Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no
understanding, Whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in
check, Otherwise they will not come near to you.
Notice the context of the verses, something Doug conveniently ignores.
He will instruct and teach them and admonishes them to not be "as the
horse or as the mule which have no understanding". There is not one
phrase that implies the horses and mules are any thing more than
horses and mules.
Now how about Jeremiah?
Jeremiah 5:7 "Why should I pardon you? Your sons have forsaken Me
And sworn by those who are not gods. When I had fed them to the full,
They committed adultery And trooped to the harlot's house.
Jeremiah 5:8 "They were well-fed lusty horses, Each one neighing
after his neighbor's wife.
Jeremiah 5:9 "Shall I not punish these people," declares the Lord,
"And on a nation such as this Shall I not avenge Myself?
It seems to me that Doug has a problem with his references. He
claims, "Scripture interprets itself �the symbols can be interpreted
from Psa. 32:9, and from Jer. 5:8."
I agree, scripture does interpret itself and in the two references he
quoted, they do, they are horses. In neither case is the subject
"horses", it is about people acting like horses.
>>
>> 5. "OK, can you show, with scripture, where the church ever had a
>> kingdom to restore?
>
>The saints are in the kingdom of Christ, and they are called the holy
>city and the heavenly Jerusalem. In Acts, James refers to the church as
>the "tabernacle of David," which was to be "built again." This refers to
>the church too.
>
>Acts 15:13-17.
>13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and
>brethren, hearken unto me:
>14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
>take out of them a people for his name.
>15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
>16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of
>David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof,
>and I will set it up:
>17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the
>Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all
>these things.
>
There goes Doug again, claiming scripture says something that it does
not say, ascribing his "private interpretation" to scripture. That is
why he cannot answer questions and provide proof of his answers.
>>
>> Question 5-8 comes from a quote of scripture made by Doug and pertains
>> to his quote. Off topic?
>>
>> 6. "Did the "apostles and writers" not also believe that the Lord was
>> about to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time as their question in
>> Acts 1:6 suggests?
>
>They probably did believe in an earthly kingdom, at that time, but that
>was before they received the gift of the Spirit, and so their
>understanding was limited. Several days later, in Acts 2:36, Peter said,
>being inspired by the Spirit, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know
>assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
>both Lord and Christ."
>
And Jesus did not correct them. So what if they did not have "the
gift of the Spirit" at that time, they had Jesus himself. Are you
suggesting that Jesus could not correct them if they were wrong? I am
surprised that he did not tell them that they would have to wait for
Doug to explain what He meant.
>He recognized that Christ had become Lord of all, and that the believers
>were the citizens in his kingdom.
>
There goes Doug limiting God to his belief that God can only have one
"kingdom" and every place in the Bible that refers to "kingdom" it is
really talking about the church. The problem is, that view will not
hold shucks, much less water.
>>
>> 7. "Did the apostles not believe that the "kingdom" that the Lord was
>> speaking of was the "kingdom to Israel?
>
>Those who believe in Christ have been "translated" into Christ's kingdom,
>Paul said.
>
That is a true statement, however, there will also be another
"kingdom" on earth and it will not be the church and that is the
"kingdom" that the apostles were speaking of, and, were not corrected
by Jesus.
>Col. 1:12-14
>12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers
>of the inheritance of the saints in light:
>13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated
>us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
>14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
>sins:
>
Has absolutely nothing to do with the earthly "kingdom".
>>
>> 8. "Did the Lord tell them that it was about the kingdom of the church,
>> not Israel?
>
>Jesus said:
>
>Luke 16:16
>The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of
>God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
>
>The kingdom is something we need to seek, as "a man seeking goodly
>pearls." Jesus said, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God." [Mat. 6:33]
>
There is not one mention in these verses about the "church" and, Doug
did not answer the question.
>>
>> 9. "If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that
>> it seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
>> evidence proving me wrong?
>
>Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." [Mat 5:39]
>
What Doug is really saying here is, anyone who dares to ask him
questions that he cannot answer, is evil. It is interesting that out
of the hundreds of posts that Doug has responded to on my posts, that
he has just recently decided to ignore them. What took you so long to
come to that conclusion Doug? You tried giving ridiculous answers,
ignoring questions you could not answer, intimidation and even some
veiled threats, none of which worked so now you are going to take the
high and righteous route, eh?
>>
>> 10. "If he cannot do so, then the question should be, "why does he
>> insist upon continuing to falsely portray the word of God"?
>
>See above.
>
See what above, your avoidance of answering questions?
>>
>> 11. "What is his agenda and does he have the best interest for the
>> souls of others at heart?
>
>Titus 2:11-15
> 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
> 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
>live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
> 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
>great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
> 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
>and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
> 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no
>man despise thee.
>
Some very good verses, however, I do not see one word in them about it
being righteous or holy when one makes false accusations, blatantly
lies, proclaims that verses say things they do not say, add to or
subtract words from scripture, quote scripture out of context and/or
selectively edits quoted sources. These are the same accusations that
I have repeatedly made about Doug and he has never challenged me to
prove them being correct, interesting, I wonder why.
>>
>> 12. "Why does he feel it necessary to repeatedly use deception and
>> untruths in his arguments?
>
>Dispensationalism is a deception. Why else would the dispensationalists
>have to resort to nasty defamatory attacks, instead of addressing the
>issues?
>
Oh, and who was it that refused this offer Doug?
"So Doug, why do you not explain to everyone why you refuse to accept
my challenge to take Daniel chapter 9 verse by verse, phrase by phrase
and word by word with nothing but the unadulterated Bible and have a
debate?"
You never have explained why you refuse to do this Doug, are you
saying a debate of Daniel 9 is not "addressing the issues"? Or, is it
a fact that you know from past experiences that you cannot answer the
questions that I will ask and will only end up looking like the phony
doctrine that you promote?
Doug will go on forever with someone that is willing to engage in a, I
say this and you say that, but when someone insists upon asking
questions and also proof for his answers, he loses all interest.
>>
>> These are questions asked directly of Doug in response to his post, or,
>> about Doug, from his post. Therefore, how can they be off topic"?
>>
>> So prove that you have an once of integrity Doug and answer the
>> questions, rather than trying to present a lamb brained excuse for not
>> doing so. Which only reinforces your ludicrous statement.
>>
>> Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those
>> who take refuge in Him.
>>
>> Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you
>> will be proved a liar.
>>
>> As for as I am concerned, scripture, with the generous help of Doug,
>> proves Doug to be a "liar". He consistently adds, deletes and/or
>> changes words in scripture trying to support his blasphemous views.
>>
>> If what I post about Doug is untrue and inaccurate, and being that it
>> seems to upset him severely, why does he not present an argument and
>> evidence proving me wrong? If he cannot do so, then the question should
>> be, "why does he insist upon continuing to falsely portray the word of
>> God"? What is his agenda and does he have the best interest for the
>> souls of others at heart? Why does he feel it necessary to repeatedly
>> use deception and untruths in his arguments?
>>
>> Hmmmm, I have a theory??.
>>
>> Bear
Bear
One would think Doug would learn after a while but obviously, he
cannot. He insists upon quoting material that proves his view,
however, it accomplishes just the opposite.
>Step 1: Realize that their messages are a waste of time and energy.
>Letting Internet message board trolls get under a person's skin is an
>effort in futility. What they post on message boards is not about you. Do
>not take it personally.
>
What my responses to Doug's post are about, is his false accusations,
changing scripture to support his blasphemous doctrine, selectively
editing of materials to say what he wants them to say, quoting
scripture out of context and, his blatant lies. I can, and have,
proven that Doug is guilty of every one of these charges that I make.
I have made them numerous times and not once has Doug refuted them, or
even tried to. If anyone accused me of what I accuse Doug of, I would
definitely take it personally, unless, I could not prove the
accusations to be false. In that case, I would perhaps try some of
the tactics Doug tries, i.e. intimidation, ridicule, veiled threats
and ignoring anything that I had no answer for.
>Step 2: Understand that message board trolls do it for the attention. If
>they are given that attention, it just fuels their passion to post
>annoying information. If there is no reward, they will eventually go away
>or stop posting.
>
Multiple times I have offered to stop responding to Doug's post, if,
he would stop asserting scripture saying things that it plainly does
not say, he has refused every offer.
As illustrated below, I have stated quite clearly the reason for my
responding to his post, and it is not his "Step 2".
"I know that Doug does not have the guts to answer my questions and/or
respond to the points made, and that is ok because the only reason
that I respond to his idiotic posts is to make someone that is not
that familiar with scripture or his writings, aware of his blasphemy
of God's word and in actuality, promoting the agenda of Satan, either
consciously or unconsciously.
>Step 3: Understand that message board trolls are all about themselves.
>What they post is about them and not specific related to the topic they
>are expounding on. The statements a troll makes may be asinine and make
>your blood boil, but understand it will impossible to change their minds
>or alter their views. The troll is posting on a topic specifically for
>the attention and not about that specific topic.
>
Yep, it is all about me, that is why I have challenged Doug numerous
times to a discussion of scripture, using nothing but scripture, yet
he refuses. OTOH, Doug loves to tell everyone exactly what scripture
really says, however, he refuses to answer questions and provide proof
of his answers.
>Step 4: Leave the message for a few days. Often these trolls become bored
>and leave or get banned from the community after a few days. Putting the
>keyboard down and just walking away is often the best solution.
>
It has not worked for Doug in my case, which must mean that I do not
qualify as a "troll".
>Step 5: Ask the moderator to ban the message board troll. While this is
>not totally ignoring the troll, it does not give them the satisfaction of
>a direct response. With enough requests, the user will be banned and the
>problem will be solved.
>
><snip>
It is SOP for Doug to post this kind of garbage, in an attempt to
discredit and/or cast suspicion upon the integrity of those that
disagree with him.
My caveat about Doug.
"I have offered previously to stop my responses to your posts,
remember?
I believe my accusations are proven accurate by your refusal to
address the challenges I have presented. Just as an example;
Here is a perfect opportunity for Doug to demonstrate his integrity
and to show that my accusations about him are wrong but he declines to
do so. His quietness Is almost deafening with what it shouts.
I WILL MAKE ONE PROMISE UNILATERALLY, YOU REFUTE EACH ONE OF THE
ACCUSATIONS I MAKE IN THE CAVEAT WITH PROOF THAT MY ACCUSATIONS ARE
FALSE AND I WILL IMMEDIATELY REFRAIN FROM USING IT.
In the event you choose not to do this, then I, and I would assume
most, will interpret your refusal as an admission that the accusations
I make are not false and you are guilty of the offenses.
However, I WILL OFFER A COMPROMISE TO YOU, YOU REFRAIN FROM THOSE
TACTICS AND ONLY POST COMMENTS YOU CAN PROVE WITH UNADULTERATED
SCRIPTURE AND I PROMISE TO NOT POST THE CAVEAT ABOUT YOU."
Doug has not denied, nor refuted, what I accuse him of, not once.
Bear
Fred A Stover
And he did he'd be lying. He's totally consumed by Satan.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
>
> Bear