Understanding Biblical Prophecy
Bear
An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
www.khouse.org
There never has been a more exciting time to undertake a serious study
of Bible hermeneutics-methods of interpretation. I join the many
Biblical scholars who believe we are on the threshold of the most
climactic era of all time. There is a classic Biblical scenario that
has long been espoused by many who take the Bible seriously, and that
may soon be subjected to some decisive empirical tests.
But before we explore the events on our immediate horizon, we need to
gain a perspective of the various elements that make up the classic
Biblical prophetic scenario of the end-time.
Analyzing the Text
There are few areas of more diverse-and intense-differences of opinion
than in the field of eschatology (the study of last things). Each of
the various views essentially derives from the hermeneutics with which
one approaches Biblical studies. One's views can be strongly
influenced by one's willingness to depart from the literal rendering
of the text. Furthermore, people's eschatological views also derive
from an integration of their comprehensive understanding of the whole
body of Scripture, their grasp of the whole counsel of God. And, of
course, there are outstanding scholars espousing each of the many
widely differing views.
While an analysis or defense of each of the alternative scholastic
positions is beyond the scope of this book, I will adhere to a
fundamental position.
Exegesis
The initial step in any textual analysis is exegesis: determining what
the text actually says. This embraces such issues as translation,
lexicography, and grammar. Fortunately, relatively few controversies
we will encounter depend upon exegetical issues. The major issues are
generally well understood, and apparent discrepancies are deferred to
experts who have made the study of the original languages their
specialty.
Hermeneutics
The next step involves hermeneutics: the theories of interpretation.
Here there are, of course, wide variances among the alternative
approaches to understanding the Biblical text. Since the early
writings of Origen and their subsequent adoption by Augustine, a
widespread willingness to adopt allegorical approaches to many of the
difficult passages has been handed down through the traditions of most
denominational churches. The scholastic difficulties compound as one
drifts away from the direct statements of the text. As they often quip
in the data-processing industry, "If you torture the data long enough,
it will confess to anything."
The "literal" view I take in this book supports the fact that the
entire package of Scripture-66 books penned by more than 40 authors
over several thousand years-is an integrated design emerging from
outside the constraints of the time dimension itself. There are
several reasons favoring the literal view. Whenever we encounter
someone in the Bible reading the Bible, we find him taking it
literally. For example, when Daniel read Jeremiah (as seen in Daniel
9:2), he took him literally. From a personal standpoint, in my 50
years of serious study of the Bible, obviously I have had to revise my
own perspectives on a number of occasions. However, each revision has
always driven me to take the text even more seriously-literally-than
before.
Furthermore, the Lord Himself gave us this instruction:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17-18)
A "jot," or yod, is one of the 22 Hebrew letters; it is so small that
we might mistake it for an apostrophe, or a blemish on the paper. A
"tittle" is a tiny mark that distinguishes some of the letters. These
were a Hebraic equivalent to saying, "not the dotting of an i or the
crossing of a t will pass from the law until all be fulfilled." This
sounds like a call to take the text very literally.
It is also my experience that in addition to a literal interpretation
of the text, we also need a precise interpretation. Precision proves
to be an essential requisite to avoid confusion, ambiguities, and
misunderstandings. While there are many interpretations of the
Biblical text, many of them emerge from allegorical assumptions or
fanciful conjectures that are not necessarily consistent with the
various texts when taken as an integrated whole. It is the emergent
integrated design that both validates its supernatural origin and
clarifies ostensible conflicts among the details. In fact, studies in
eschatology will challenge one's familiarity with the overall
comprehensive design, yielding its greatest blessings.
Rhetorical Devices
A literal view does not deny the existence of figures of speech:
similes, metaphors, analogies, and so on. These, in fact, are
highlighted by God Himself: "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I
have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the
prophets" (Hos. 12:10).
More than 200 different rhetorical devices used in the Scriptures have
been catalogued. The role of rhetorical devices is highly relevant to
our understanding the Biblical text.
Symbols
For most of us, prophecy appears as a prediction and its subsequent
fulfillment. This is actually a Greek model of thinking that appeals
to the Western mind. However, to the Hebrew mind, prophecy often is
pattern. Some of these patterns appear to be a deliberate anticipation
of subsequent events.
Paul highlights this in his letter to the Corinthians:
"Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come"
(1 Cor. 10:11).
The word translated "examples" is tupos, the Greek word from which we
get the word type, an anticipatory pattern or symbol. An example of a
"type" occurs in Abraham's offering of Isaac, his son, in Genesis 22.
Known as the Akedah, this pivotal event was, in many ways, the
archetype of them all. Abraham is in the role of the father; Isaac,
his son. Abraham apparently realized this was an anticipatory
enactment of a prophecy since he named the site, "In the mount of the
LORD it shall be seen" (Gen. 22:14). In fact, it was his confidence
that Isaac would be resurrected that is noted in the New Testament
(Heb. 11:19).What Abraham may not have realized is that 2,000 years
later, another Father would offer His Son as an offering for sin on
that very spot!
Another example occurred when Moses was instructed to put a brass
serpent on a pole on a hill as a remedy for an incursion of venomous
snakes (Num. 21:4-9). The symbolism of this strange episode remains
obscure until, in the New Testament, Jesus explains it to Nicodemus:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that
the world through him might be saved. (John 3:14-17)
It becomes obvious that God's instructions to Moses in Numbers 21
deliberately anticipated the Cross of Christ. In fact, this even gave
rise to the most well-known verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16.
There are many fruitful studies of symbols in the Bible-entire
libraries are devoted to them. Jesus Christ as the Passover Lamb is
another illustrative example. When John the Baptist first introduced
Jesus publicly he declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world" (John 1:29). It is astonishing to discover how
many Passover specifications foreshadowed the Crucifixion and related
events.
Perpsectives vs. Doctrine
Symbols are illustrative to gain or validate perspective but are
hazardous as doctrinal "proofs" alone. When dealing with allegories,
it is easy to misapply them. And yet there are many "patterns" that do
appear to illuminate perspectives. This is one of the reasons that
eschatology is, in effect, a test of our understanding of the
composite whole of Scripture, and not simply a pursuit of certain
proof texts to support a specific thesis. The ultimate context
requires a perspective of the whole counsel of God, which makes
eschatology such a challenge for the serious student. It is essential
to avoid "one-verse theology," and always to establish any issue with
two or three witnesses, which is to say, with more than one verse.
An example of an eschatological "candidate type" is the role of Boaz
in the book of Ruth, returning the forfeited lands to Naomi and his
taking a Gentile bride, all as an anticipatory "type" of our own
Kinsman-Redeemer. Another example might include the removal of Enoch
before the Flood (Gen. 5:24).
There were three groups of people facing the Flood of Noah: those who
perished in the Flood, those who were preserved through the Flood, and
those who were removed prior to the Flood. Some Biblical scholars see
a pattern here that suggests the removal of the Church before the
"great tribulation."
Nebuchadnezzar's forced worship of his image in Daniel 3 is also a
popular example of a type of the Antichrist. Another example of an
end-time allegory occurs between the book of Joshua and the book of
Revelation where another Jehoshua dispossesses usurpers from God's
real estate by sending in two witnesses who employ seven trumpets and
defeat the enemy. In the final battle, the kings who aligned
themselves under a leader who calls himself "the Lord of
Righteousness" are defeated with signs in the sun and moon and then
hide themselves in caves (Joshua 10:1-28; Rev. 6:15-17). The more you
study both books, the more the similarities are striking and
illuminating.
Validations
Confirming validations in the field of Biblical studies is often
elusive, particularly in the field of eschatology. However, as history
continues to unfold, it appears that literal interpretations gain many
surprising validations. The reemergence of the state of Israel is a
prime example. The occurrence of certain litmus tests may allow us to
confirm our perspectives.
In order to put these elements into a relevant context, let's first
summarize each of the principal elements of the classical Biblical
end-time scenario in the chapters that follow.
Doug
article <05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com>:
> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>
<snip>
>
> The "literal" view I take in this book supports the fact that the entire
> package of Scripture-66 books penned by more than 40 authors over
> several thousand years-is an integrated design emerging from outside the
> constraints of the time dimension itself. There are several reasons
> favoring the literal view. Whenever we encounter someone in the Bible
> reading the Bible, we find him taking it literally. For example, when
> Daniel read Jeremiah (as seen in Daniel 9:2), he took him literally.
> From a personal standpoint, in my 50 years of serious study of the
> Bible, obviously I have had to revise my own perspectives on a number of
> occasions. However, each revision has always driven me to take the text
> even more seriously-literally-than before.
>
> Furthermore, the Lord Himself gave us this instruction:
>
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
> come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
> and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
> law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17-18)
>
> A "jot," or yod, is one of the 22 Hebrew letters; it is so small that we
> might mistake it for an apostrophe, or a blemish on the paper. A
> "tittle" is a tiny mark that distinguishes some of the letters. These
> were a Hebraic equivalent to saying, "not the dotting of an i or the
> crossing of a t will pass from the law until all be fulfilled." This
> sounds like a call to take the text very literally.
It seems to be an error, to draw a conclusion about how to interpret
prophecy, from this statement of Jesus about the law. There is nothing in
the statement of Jesus here that supports taking prophetic language
literally.
A more enlightened approach is suggested by A. W. Pink, who was a
dispensationalist at one time in his life, but eventually abandoned that
view. He also quoted from Matthew 5:17, to show the continuity of the Old
and New Testaments. He wrote, in Chapter 4 of his book Interpretation of
the scriptures:
<quote>
Coming now to those principles which are to guide the student in his
efforts to interpret God's Word, we place first and foremost the need for
recognizing the inter-relation and mutual dependence of the Old and New
Testaments. We do so because error at this point inevitably results in a
serious misunderstanding and perverting of not a little in the later
Scriptures. We do not propose to enter into a refutation of the modern
heresy of "dispensationalism," but to treat of this section of our
subject constructively. ...
The similarity of the two Testaments is much greater and more vital than
their dissimilarity. ... The New has all its roots in the Old, so that
much in the one is unintelligible apart from the other. Not only is a
knowledge of the history of the patriarchs and of the institutions of
Judaism indispensable for an understanding of many details in the Gospels
and the Epistles, but its terms and ideas are identical. That it is
entirely unwarrantable for us to suppose that the message proclaimed by
the Lord Jesus was something new or radically different from the early
communications of God appears from His emphatic warning: "Think not that
I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17)--to vindicate and substantiate them, to
free them from human perversions and misrepresentations, and to make good
what they demanded and announced. So far from there being any antagonism
between the teaching of Christ and Divine messengers who preceded Him,
when He enunciated "the golden law" He stated, "for this is the law and
the prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
Most certainly there was no conflict between the testimony of the
apostles and that of their Master, for He had expressly enjoined them to
teach their converts "to observe all things whatsoever I have [not
shall!] commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). Nor did the doctrinal system of
Paul differ in any wise from that enunciated in the Old Testament. At the
very beginning of the first epistle bearing his name he is particular to
inform us that the Gospel unto which God had separated him was none other
than the one "He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy
scriptures" (Rom. 1:1, 2); and when he stated that the righteousness of
God was now revealed apart from the Law, he was careful to add, "being
witnessed by the law and the prophets" (3:21). When he vindicated his
teaching on justification by faith without the deeds of the Law, he did
so by appealing to the case of Abraham and the testimony of David (Rom.
4). When he admonished the Corinthians against being lulled into a false
sense of security because of the spiritual gifts which had been bestowed
upon them, he reminded them of the Israelites who had been highly favored
of God, yet that did not keep them from His displeasure when they sinned,
even though they "did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did drink the
same spiritual drink" (1 Cor. 10:1-5). And when illustrating important
practical truth, he cites the history of Abraham's two sons (Gal.
4:22-31).
In many respects the New Testament is a continuation of and a complement
to the Old. The difference between the old and new covenants referred to
in Hebrews is a relative and not an absolute one. The contrast is not
really between two opposites, but rather between a gradation from the
lower to the higher plane--the one preparing for the other. While some
have erred in too much Judaizing Christianity, others have entertained
far too carnal a conception of Judaism, failing to perceive the spiritual
elements in it, and that under it God was then as truly administering the
blessings of the everlasting covenant unto those whom He had chosen in
Christ as He is now, yea, that He had done so from Abel onwards. Rightly,
then, did Calvin rebuke the madness of our modern dispensationalists when
reproving those of their forerunners who appeared in his day, saying,
"Now what would be more absurd than that Abraham should be the father of
all the faithful, and not possess even the lowest place among them? But
he cannot be excluded from the number, even from the most honorable
station, without the destruction of the Church."
...
That there must be a fundamental harmony between Judaism and Christianity
appears in the fact that the same God is the Author of both, and is
unchanging in His perfections and the principles of His government. The
former was indeed addressed more to the outward man, was transacted under
visible forms and relations, and had respect primarily to a worldly
sanctuary and earthly inheritance; nevertheless, they were all of them a
"shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:5; 10:1). "In the New Testament we
have a higher, yet very closely related, exhibition of truth and duty
than in the Old, which involves both the agreements and differences of
the two covenants. The agreements lie deeper and concern the more
essential elements of the two economies; the differences are of a more
circumstantial and formal nature" (Fairbairn). Personally, we would say
that the principal variations appear in that in the one we have promise
and prediction, in the other performance and fulfillment: first the types
and shadows (the "blade"), then the reality and substance or "full corn
in the ear." The Christian dispensation excels the Mosaic in a fuller and
clearer manifestation of God's perfections (1 John 2:8), in a more
abundant effusion of the Spirit (John 7:39; Acts 2:3), in its wider
extent (Matthew 28:19, 20), and in a larger measure of liberty (Rom.
8:15; Gal. 4:2-7).
</quote>
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Interpretation/interpret_04.htm
--
Doug
Bear
Gee, I thought Doug just alluded to not answering my questions because
I am supposed to be a "troll" and he did not wish to feed the "troll".
So what is he doing now? I guess when he disagrees with someone's
post, he is enlightening them, when others disagree with his post,
they are trolling. Typical attitude of a liberal.
>It seems to be an error, to draw a conclusion about how to interpret
>prophecy, from this statement of Jesus about the law.
It is only Doug's opinion that it is in error, he cannot prove it to
be with scripture.
>There is nothing in
>the statement of Jesus here that supports taking prophetic language
>literally.
>
Perhaps, but Doug cannot show any where in the statement where Jesus
does not support it being literal, that is only Doug's private
interpretation. Of course, Doug does not think anything in prophecy
is literal; he seems to think it is all a fairy tale.
>A more enlightened approach is suggested by A. W. Pink, who was a
>dispensationalist at one time in his life, but eventually abandoned that
>view. He also quoted from Matthew 5:17, to show the continuity of the Old
>and New Testaments. He wrote, in Chapter 4 of his book Interpretation of
>the scriptures:
>
If Doug would spend half as much time discussing what scripture says
as opposed to trying to denigrate dispensationalists, he may have some
credibility.
I would not waste my time reading Doug's quotes, chances are he has
misquoted, quoted out of context or asserts the author said something
that he did not say. I have chased to many of Doug's rabbits to go
down that road, it is a waste of time.
Doug is "Johnny on the Spot" when there is a post where he is not
asked questions, just start asking questions and he is nowhere to be
found.
Bear
RWKnapp
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:35:23 -0600, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
> >article <05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q3oio3ls47or509...@4ax.com>:
This is very interesting, one does the same as you do here, and you
call him a liberal. Two of a kind.
Bear
wrote:
Raymond, have you ever in your life posted accusations that you could
prove as being factual? You say you do not lie, I proved over and
over that you do, you called me a liar, I asked you to present some
evidence proving it, you never responded. You really should arrange
for someone to edit what you post, perhaps they could keep you from
making yourself look like a total idiot.
Bear
Ike E 11/16/09
"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>
> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>
> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
> www.khouse.org
How can someone who totally doesn't understand biblical prophecy tell anyone
how to understand biblical prophecy?
Hey, Genius: If Jeremiah was only talking about the past, why did John quote
him in Revelation? And if Jeremiah was only talking about the future, why
wasn't he stoned as a false prophet?
How come you people never read prophecy the way Jesus and the boys TAUGHT
prophecy, i.e. "for the time is coming, AND now...?" (or vice versa.)
[snippeth the foolishness of one who presumes to be the teacher when he
doesn't know the subject matter]
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>
>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>
>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>> www.khouse.org
>
>
>
>[snippeth the foolishness
Ike thinks he is the smartest man on earth, and proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
quotes below.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
>
>Ike
>
Ike E 11/16/09
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:03:02 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>>
>>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>>> www.khouse.org
I repeat: How can someone who doesn't have a clue as to how to interpret
prophecy teach anyone how to understand prophecy?
Back to you, dumbass...
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:rg7dg599uh8gcl681...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:03:02 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>>>
>>>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>>>> www.khouse.org
>
>I repeat: How can someone who doesn't have a clue as to how to interpret
>prophecy teach anyone how to understand prophecy?
Perhaps it is the same way as these quotes demonstrate.
Ike E 11/16/09
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:10:22 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:rg7dg599uh8gcl681...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:03:02 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>>>>> www.khouse.org
>>
>>I repeat: How can someone who doesn't have a clue as to how to interpret
>>prophecy teach anyone how to understand prophecy?
>
> Perhaps it is the same way as these quotes demonstrate.
Perhaps you're a jackass trying to dodge the questions that prove you wrong
(as usual), while demanding that everyone ELSE answer YOURS.
Hypocrite.
Now, did the Church come BEFORE or AFTER Pentecost? 'cause somebody is
wrong, either Matthew or Luke.
But you already KNOW that, which is why you won't answer the question,
'cause if you answer the question, then you PROVE that the written Bible is
NOT INFALLIBLE, and all your little chicken shit arguments begin to fall
apart.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:273gg5dipbp3scvvs...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:10:22 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:rg7dg599uh8gcl681...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:03:02 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>>>>>> www.khouse.org
>>>
>>>I repeat: How can someone who doesn't have a clue as to how to interpret
>>>prophecy teach anyone how to understand prophecy?
>>
>> Perhaps it is the same way as these quotes demonstrate.
>
>Perhaps you're
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
outstanding qualifications.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:273gg5dipbp3scvvs...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:10:22 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:rg7dg599uh8gcl681...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:03:02 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:05f6g5ph0egn8rq4q...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting article by Chuck Missler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understanding Biblical Prophecy - By Dr. Chuck Missler -
>>>>>> www.khouse.org
>>>
>>>I repeat: How can someone who doesn't have a clue as to how to interpret
>>>prophecy teach anyone how to understand prophecy?
>>
>> Perhaps it is the same way as these quotes demonstrate.
>
>Perhaps you're a jackass trying to dodge the questions that prove you wrong
>(as usual), while demanding that everyone ELSE answer YOURS.
>
>Hypocrite.
>
>Now, did the Church come BEFORE or AFTER Pentecost? 'cause somebody is
>wrong, either Matthew or Luke.
The day of, herman.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ike E 11/16/09
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kdlig5pomjqit0uch...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>>Now, did the Church come BEFORE or AFTER Pentecost? 'cause somebody is
>>wrong, either Matthew or Luke.
>
> The day of, herman.
...said the moron who even ADMITTED that Matthew was written long after the
fact, but fails to see how he falsified Jesus' statement, which HE COULDN'T
HAVE MADE.
<chuckle>
Go figure.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
><yawn>
>
Just trying to help Ike of keeping the public informed of his
Ike E 11/23/9
"...show my ass to everyone."
signed
Bear
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:8r2lg59g4g3te9gbd...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:28:57 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>><yawn>
>>>
>> Just trying to...
>
>"...show
to the public Ike's outstanding qualifications.
or this one...
right on mark again...
Bear
>
>Bear
>
Ike E 11/23/9
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Done playing yet, oh, childish one?
>
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
Ike E 11/23/9
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:05 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Done playing yet, oh, childish one?
>>
> ...to make sure fundaliteralist Christians remain clueless.
> signed
> Bear
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:i8elg59h80ssrvkc7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:05 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Done playing yet, oh, childish one?
>>>
>> Trying to do my part...
>
>> ...to make sure
the public is kept informed of Ike's outstanding qualifications.
I cannot believe what an ego Ike has, he continually gives me all
these opportunities so he can show how smart he is.