Ah! Just like covenantee. You cannot defend your position biblically, cannot rebut my position biblically so you resort to the attacks on my spelling.
I have defended my position REPEATEDLY and have rebutted several of your positions biblically MANY times, so don't give me this nonsense.
Normal people? No people who simply believe what is written as it is written.
LOL. So, tell me when you expect a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns to arrive on the scene.
Spiritual discernment is just a disguise for you and your covenanttee counter part to have license to reinterpret Scripture to suit your agenda, what ever that may be.
So, you don't think spiritual discernment is necessary? Was Paul just making things up in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16?
No, but I follow what is the golden rule of biblical understanding:
“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.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of
The Biblical Research Societ
That's a golden rule of nonsense. That's a good rule for reading a news article, but not for interpreting scripture.
I fully recognize that teh bible uses symbols, parables, visions and apocalyptic language.
Are you really? It doesn't seem like it. How do you read those types of things as they are written?
I also know god doesn't trust mankind ( as is shown plainly on this thread) to "interpret things".
What is your deal with not capitalizing God?
so the Bible interprets all of its symbolisms, visions, drewams, parabvles and apocalyptic language.
It does? So, tell me who the beast with seven heads and ten horns is then. Tell me who Babylon is. Tell me the meaning of every verse in the book of Revelation.
Oh, so all didn't mean all?
we should not draw absolute conclusions, but simple possibilities.
LOL. What does that even mean?
That is how we are taught to read and understand every other piece of literature.
Goodness gracious. That is complete nonsense. Is the Bible just like every other piece of literature? No way!
If it is not to be the way we look at the bible, I await your defense of your reinterpreting teh palin words to have them mean something different.
Plain words? How do you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13? Those plain words indicate that the heavens and earth will be burned up and the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in on the day Christ returns in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. So, do you interpret those plain words according to your golden rule? No, you don't.
One of your classic reinterpretation s is the Daniel passagfe we are debating.
YOu say the seocnd prince mentioned is Jesus!
Actually, someone else was saying that and I say that is a possibility, but I'm not sure. It could refer to Titus or some other Roman leader who led the attack on Jerusalem around 70 AD when they came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.
I showed why it cannot be literally, grammatically and linguistically, nor historically.
You have showed nothing but bias. You are not the grammar expert that you pretend to be.
You put he church in this passage but yet the entire 490 years is for Jews.
What Jesus did was for the Jews first and the prophecy is about that. But, Gentiles have benefited from what He did as well, obviously.
It specifically says the second prince named makes a 7 year covenant with Israel.
No, it does not. It says it takes 7 years to confirm the covenant, it does not say the covenant only lasts for 7 years.
You say it is Jesus , but you cannot point to one covenant Jesus made with Israel that is 7 years in duration.
Do you actually think that's what I'm claiming? LOL! Of course not. I very clearly indicated that I believe it's talking about Him confirming the new covenant. Do you think I believe the new covenant lasted only 7 years? No, I'm saying it took 7 years to confirm and establish the new covenant in Israel first. At about the midway point of the 70th week Jesus made His "once for all" sacrifice and offering which put an end to the need for the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings. Then for the last part of the 70th week the gospel went out to Israel through the power of the Holy Spirit to confirm that the new covenant had been established.
You say th esacrifcews and oblations cease means there usefulness ceased- and that is all. But that is not what it says. It say8s the physical sacxrifices and oblations will be caused to end.
Here's where that spiritual discernment that you don't think is necessary is required. You could not care less about context or about interpreting scripture in a way that doesn't contradict other scripture. Your interpretive approach is terrible and leads to all kinds of errors.
you are guilty of the typoical thing covenant people do, " I know this is what teh bible says, but this is what it really means". Like you are Gods editor! Hogwash!
You thinking that everything is spelled out for us is hogwash. That is clearly not the case. Using your approach, any random person on the street could interpret the Bible. But, is that what the Bible itself says about "the natural man"? Absolutely not.
