Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Dr James Ach

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Dr James Ach

  1. Just when I thought that JD Hall and some of his Calvinist followers couldn’t get any lower, I stumbled upon a conversation that took place on Twitter where JD Hall, Fred Butler, “Rhology”, Gene Clyatt (Shinar Squirrel) where all of these Genevan Calvinists were harassing Ergun Caner’s 15 year old son. Not only is the […] View the full article
  2. [Assistant Editor's note: this looks like a deliberate conspiracy to slam the borders with known sick immigrants to spread disease as well as chaos into the country. There's just no other explanation for the things that OBama has allowed to happen on the US borders. A scary thought would be that if the US is […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1613&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" /> View the full article
  3. WARNING: If you are a member of the Anon Church, and can’t handle what you’ve dished out to other Baptists, this article is going to REALLY offend you! The Anon Church is a group of cyber religious terrorists lead by a convicted sex offender Matthew Coker (convicted for child pornography) -who goes by “Back Row […] View the full article
  4. A so-called Christian heavy metal band whose frontman was convicted of attempting to hire a hitman to murder his estranged wife has admitted that it duped fans into believing that they were Christian in order to sell their music. “Truthfully, I was an atheist,” Tim Lambesis, the lead singer and founder of As I Lay Dying told theAlternative Press in a recent interview. […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1529&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" /> View the full article
  5. Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is. You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.
  6. Considering that I have been gone all weekend and today is really some of my first postings in about 4 days, and your very first response to me is sarcastic (after just telling someone else to "cut the sarcasm" in Post #81), I would say that my assumption on how you intend to respond was pretty accurate. But it does appear that with the accusation of "paranoid" you have joined the ranks of the other James White hooligans (some on this board such as Genevan Preacher) that have labeled me a "conspiracy theorist". Here's a little bit more accuracy about your "activities": you are sympathizing more and more with those who purposely throw around false doctrine on this forum. Of all of the points I made toward Jeffrey, instead of dealing with the issues related to his attack on the KJV and support of modern version, you isolated one part of my comment to be sarcastic about whether or not you had the ability to read. And for the record, I never said you couldn't read (since you adamantly repeated it twice in 2 separate comments), even a 1st grader can read, but that doesn't mean they have enough comprehension to understand how many calories are in a bowl full of modern version soup.
  7. You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about. It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11. Thus if this is how it's going to be from now on every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.
  8. Now for Jeffrey, I'll ask you the same questions that James White keeps dodging about the Codex Sinaiticus: 1. If the correctors of Aleph are supposed to be 4th - 5th century, then explain how a 12th century Islamic prophecy is written in Arabic in the folio of Revelation chapter 7-8 in the footnote? 2. If the correctors of Aleph are 4th & 5th century, explain how 9th century miniscules were used in corrections (such as the uncial 'betas' used in Mark 2). Kind of hard to ascribe correctors to the 5th century when there is evidence of styles that were not in use until 400 years later. 3. Defend James White's assumption that Aleph was "in much usage" by the earlier churches when there are numerous folios that are written on pure white parchment (and free of any lemon or other whitening process). I have about 20 more anomalies I could list, but those 3 are smoking guns against the Sinaiticus that James White has refused to answer from us for at least a year now. Why? Because the life of all your modern versions and the veracity of their textual criticism apparatus DEPENDS ON CODEX SINAITICUS, and if just one card falls out, the whole house of Sinaiticus crumbles. And what's funny about James White is that he recently criticized a person for failing to show up on his radio show to debate Molinism (He's also made fun of Ergun Caner for failing to appear for a debate with him). However, White does not hold Constantine Tischendorf (the alleged founder of the Sinaiticus) to the same standard when Tishy failed to show up for a debate with Constantine Simonides who claimed authorship of the document that Tishy was trying to pass off as the oldest mss known to Christendom. Tishy had already once before accused Simonides of fraud when Simonides claimed to have a Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes (which ironically was included in Tishy first edition of his Russian copy of the Sinaiticus) and then had to retract his statements and apologize to Simonides. When Simonides publicly challenged Tishy in all of the local media outlets, Tischendorf was a no-show on the day of the debate. By the way, James White in his book on the KJVO Controversy had initially agreed with the commonly held story that Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a 'trash can'. It was not until later when this story was challenged that White altered his story to it being found bound in a red cloth carefully guarded by the monks at St. Catherine's. White is a professional liar that his boot licking followers don't pay attention to when he changes his stories. And for the rest of you, pay attention to what the subject was about. It wasn't about Peter Ruckman but about the oft made claims by KJV haters that the KJVO position was started by Ruckman giving the impression that defense of the KJV is some new phenomena. The quote is simply posted to show that defense of the KJV preceded Peter Ruckman by a long shot.
  9. Yes, God forbid that He would actually COMMAND that copies be made: Deut 17:18: " And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites" How dare God to expect kings and judges to follow laws from a COPY
  10. I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  11. Yeah, ME TOO, just saw this thread. I would also like to debate every person on the forum that defends Calvinism. Me against any Calvinist, or all of you at once, doesn't matter to me.
  12. Dr. Elisha Weismann Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue. Thomas Morris posted the following quote […] View the full article
  13. The issue went right over his head. The contention was about symbolism as it applied to mathematical equations, not the OBjects being numerated. Their initial rebuttal was that the measurements (i.e., mathematical equations) themselves were symbolic, and the point I am showing- which they've completely missed and reverted right back to circular reasoning- is that the equations given in Revelation are not neither symbolic nor allegorical. And since the mathematical equations have a literal meaning, it is impossible to conclude that the city is made up of humans because it doesn't 'add up'
  14. What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it". It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right? Don't try cashing that check.
  15. From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70 Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul.. He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism. Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology. Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please." Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other. Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66. Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen." ****************** Page 194 By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day: "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching." Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  16. The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments. Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology. Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).
  17. [The above is what Covenanter said, not Dave] If there's one thing that this forum has shown in the last year, it's that it really doesn't make any difference what forum policy is, you are going to post what you want to post anyway, so why stop now? And as I predicted (and as I have ALWAYS maintained about Calvinists) that every time someone disagrees with a Calvinist, the first thing out of their mouth is "you don't understand Calvinism". [For recent proof of my consistent position on this, >see the end of my post here in refuting Covenant Theology] and this response to Dave is no exception. Spurgeon by today's standards would not be considered a real Calvinist. According to James White, and MOST modern day Calvinists, if you are not a 5 point Calvinist (or 7 if you go by Piper's standards) you are not really a true Calvinist. In fact, James White uses this argument frequently against those who profess to have been "ex-Calvinists". He maintained this position recently against Austin Fischer, the young man who wrote "Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed", and every Calvinist from Mohler to JD Hall agreed with White that Fischer was not truly a Calvinist because he did not fully embrace all 5 points, and was just as on the fence about limited atonement, free will, and preterition (or double predestination) as Spurgeon was. The only reason that Calvinists cite Spurgeon AT ALL is because they are aware of the accusations that Calvinism eventually strangles evangelism once a person realizes that Calvinism boiled down to its most logical conclusion leaves one hopeless if he can not prove that he was chosen by God and hopeless in "soul winning" endevours if God has not chosen those whom he is preaching to. As William Carey's mentor said to him when Carey ( another inconsistent "Calvinist") spoke about using "means" in salvation: "Sit down son, if God wants to convert the heathen he will do so without your help or mine". The only "converts" modern day Calvinist churches have are the members they've stolen from other Baptist churches. Show me ONE Baptist church in the United States (or ANYWHERE) where a Calvinist started a church from scratch and got their own converts. It's impossible. Why? Because to a Calvinist THAT'S NOT EVANGELISM because confrontational soul winning requires a person to make a DECISION and Paul Washer calls that "Decisionism". So even though modern day Calvinists have NOTHING in common with Spurgeon but the few inconsistent positions that Spurgeon held, the Calvinist needs Spurgeon to make the claim that they are "evangelical" because they have no other modern day examples to point to. And ALL CALVINISM IS HYPER CALVINISM. First of all, Calvinists can't even decide among themselves just what a Hyper Calvinist is. When Phil Johnson attempted to define it, and all Calvinists agreed with it and touted it as the best article ever on defining Hyper Calvinism, Dr. David Allen proved how Johnson's definition fit James White to a T. James White got furious and then Phil Johnson and "Turretin Fan" made a clarification that completely OBscured Johnson's article. And now, James White and others will argue what a Hyper Calvinist is NOT, but they refuse to give a clear definition of what it *IS*, and the very best definition they can give of what it is not is- "NOT ME". Calvinism stands and falls with whether or not God has determined and caused the salvation of every individual that is saved which therefore leaves the non elect to have either been passed over (infra) or purposely chosen for damnation(supra) which is precisely what the Westminster Confession and the Dortion canons state. It is not possible for God to have 'passed over' anyone whereby the non elect become damned by default as a passive neglect on God's part. I have already proven this in our article on "Would God Have ReprOBated Perfect Humans?" (which also proves that Calvinism makes God the author of sin regardless of how they claim to wiggle out of it in the WCF). Essentially, the soteriological system of Calvinism ONLY WORKS if God truly determines ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER COME TO PASS (as stated in the Westminster Confession III,3). Calvinism has made a futile attempt at blaming sin and human responsibility on secondary causation while at the same time trying to maintain God's sovereignty over all events that demand His complete control. If God determines all things, then that OBviously includes all of the secondary causes and collateral events and there are truly no uncaused events that are not caused by the mind of God before the foundation of the world. Calvinism's view of sovereignty, creation, and redemption depend on the assumption of God's all inclusive decree. However, if God made this decree before He created the world, compatibilism can not be true if Adam was given any freedom at all to eat the fruit in the garden. What if Adam chooses to NOT SIN? If that happens, then God made a decree ahead of time for nothing, and not only would God have made a decree for nothing, but it would prove He must not know the future (a casual accusation Calvinists themselves throw against their opponents regarding Open Theism) because if He did, He would not have made a decree to redeem anyone because redemption requires somebody to screw up to bring sin upon mankind, and if Adam fails to sin, then guess what happens to God's decree? Therefore pursuant to Calvinist logic if it is to be consistent, GOD HAD TO GUARANTEE THAT ADAM SINNED IN ORDER FOR HIS DECREE TO COME TO PASS. This dilemma has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by any Calvinist-and it never will be. It is why all Calvinism is "Hyper Calvinism" because the Calvinist who refuses the hyper is simply refusing to carry out his own theology to its utter conclusion, unwilling to face the music about the clear implications of Calvinist determinism.
  18. Now when have you ever heard of anyone describing an army as follows...? * "Before we attack, let's recon (duh). What kind of military do they have?" * "Well, sir, they have 1 million in their army, plus generals, majors, colonels, captains, lts and sergeants". .....ME EITHER. Clearly any reference to any military at all would have included all of its generals and attaches. Furthermore, the world population in 480-500 BC was barely 100 million. Again, not even that large of a population on the planet let alone in anyone's military. And finally, why would John need a special revelation and vision to show him something that had already happened as a known historical event if Revelation 9 was a reference to Herodotus or anyone in 400 B.C.?? John was told to write about the future, not historical events. By the way, considering the earth population right now is roughly 8-9 billion after 6,000 years (less if you start after Noah), I seriously doubt we're going to hit 200 billion people as you described in your answer
  19. And of course one of the biggest fears that the larger countries have that rely on electricity for their advanced weaponry is that an EMP attack whether by nuclear bomb or by hacking the grids will cripple any advantages that said countries have over their enemies. When that happens (and its not a question of IF it will happen but merely when and how), wars will be reduced to conventional warfare....which means gun battles on horseback. Furthermore, there's a host of reasons for using horses in battle in the kind of terrain in the middle east such as in areas in Northern Israel, Pakistan, Caucus Mountains, Western Syria, etc.. In the last few years China has spent millions of dollars on a certain import from other countries. Wanna take a guess on what?? HORSES There is still no army in history other than China that has had this kind of massive military. So there is no possible way that Revelation 9 could have been fulfilled at any time prior to the 21st century.
  20. The reason Calvinists had to come up with this is because it is impossible to explain the salvation of Cornelius and others like him who sought God before being saved, and in Calvinist soteriology, man is so totally depraved he does not have the ability to seek God, and therefore must be regenerated first before he can even believe. Even though the 'ordo salutis' is different in many verses, and Calvinists are all divided on just what those orders are as well- the one thing in Scripture where the order has never been backwards is that faith is required to be regenerated: * In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" Eph 1:13 There are a ton of other verses that show faith comes before, and is even commanded, before regeneration. Gal 3:2, Romans 5:18, John 5:28, 8:24, etc.. I have addressed a popular Calvinist argument raised by James White about the dead being able to hear in "Could Lazarus Have Said 'No'" which deals with some of the arguments used by Calvinists about the abilities of dead people, and the confusion of using spiritual death and physical death when it suits their arguments. Another fancy debate tactic that they will pull if you don't pay close attention is tell you that regeneration doesn't mean salvation when they are trying to refute verses you cite about faith coming before salvation, but then switch back to the functionality of regeneration which has the effect of salvation when swimming back to their original premise. JD Hall of Reformation Montana and Pulpit and Pen tried to do this with me in a Twitter debate, and when I kept calling him out on his fallacy and forced him to stick to a defined position on regeneration, he blocked me. So before you debate a Calvinist on this make sure you nail them down on a definition of regeneration first, otherwise you will end up playing an endless game of circular reasoning with them. I'll post some more later. I'm gonna see if I can track down that Twitter "debate".
  21. The age old 'regeneration precedes faith' argument from Calvinists. I have an article on that on my other forum on Calvinism somewhere, I'll post it when I find it.
  22. Here's a real simple OBjection: How could Jesus have gone to make a place for anyone in John 14, if the building materials (the bodies that make up the "city") were not available or even born yet? Would be quite a challenge to call the PLACE that Jesus is building a city that is made out of bodies to which He said I GO TO PREPARE (which was immediately after His ascension), and the bodies needed to make that city won't be around for another couple thousand years. Furthermore, the measurements given in Revelation are given of humans BEFORE they die (as in, a cubit would be @18 inches of a human living in a mortal body now). How does anyone know that our glorified bodies will have exactly the same measurements? In other words, John could not have been using measurements of men to describe the future measurements of men when their physical features would be entirely different once they OBtained their glorified bodies. Just because Revelation uses symbolism (and nOBody is denying that the Bible uses symbolism) does not mean that certain things are not literal, and I have raised this OBjection before where Invicta nor Covenanter nor any other Calvinist, Preterist, or RT has responded to: *Are the 7 churches in Revelation ch 1-3 7 literal churches? If the number is 'symbolic' because after all we're dealing with a symbolic book, then how many churches are there really? *Were there only 7 letters or was there just one letter and 7 was symbolic meaning the original manuscript was whole and complete. *Were there 7 candlestacks? *Were there 144,000 Jews sealed? *Were there 12 tribes of Israel in Rev 7? *Does 1/3 of the waters turn to wormwood in Revelation 8 or is 1/3 just symbolic? *Are there really only 7 seals or could that just be symbolic? *Does the dragon reign for 3 1/2 years or is that 3 1/2 years just symbolic? It could be 350 1/2 years right! *Does the army from the East in Revelation 9 really have 200 million members? (And by the way, does the Chinese Army right now just coincidentally have a 200 million man army?) And one question about Revelation 9 that no Preterist or CT or RT has ever answered me on is that since the claim is Revelation was fulfilled by the Roman armies attacking Jerusalem in AD 70, show me in history where there was any army on earth with that large of a military. The entire population of the earth itself was barely that large around AD 100 let alone a single army or corrOBoration of armies. Furthermore, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem not East. Were there 4 beasts described in Revelation ch 4 or could it really be 400, or 4,000? Now I could just continue listing figure after figure after figure throughout Revelation where to understand what is symbolic you have to also understand somethings that are NOT. To understand Jesus knocking on a door in Revelation 3:20, you have to understand what a door is. This is basic hermeneutics 101. The Bible uses symbolism, hyperbole, metaphors, idioms, typology, but there are general and common sense rules to the proper placement and usages of those. What the Bible does NOT do is ascribe hidden meanings embedded into the texts that mean something other than the plain meaning the verse has to the ordinary ear and eye-that it what the Gnostics did and that is what allegorical interpretation does. Most symbolism is explained in the Bible. Some is not, but there are still applicable rules of interpretation that tell us that Ezekiel's wheel in the middle of a wheel does not mean the spinners on the rims of a rich man's limo. Covenant theology stretches the rules of interpretation to where anything literal is unrecognizable and can have any meaning you want it to.
  23. There is also something very prophetic about Zech 8:3 in and of itself if one is familiar with the geometry of Jerusalem (current and past) compared to the "math" given in Zech 8:3 which has not happened yet
  24. Revelation 21:10 doesn't say it is a mountain, it just says a mountain was where John viewed the city from. However, Jerusalem is referred to as both a city and a mountain in Zechariah 8:3 "Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain." Cities themselves have various names for themselves: metropolis, town, suburbs, ghettos, uptown, downtown, southside, etc.but they are never referred to as strawberry poptarts. What Invicta is trying to do is rationalize that if a city can have a dual meaning, like 'city' and 'mountain', then it is also possible to mean 'city' and 'a bunch of human door mats and ceiling fans' at the same time. In other words, the allegorical interpretation of the Calvinist/Covenant Theologians (and Preterism) allow a city to be a city and a strawberry poptart at the same time. There's no distinction between things that CAN be used interchangeably from those that CAN NOT, and in Revelation, ARE NOT.
  25. True; and I'm not even sure why position had anything to do with it (???). Schaap essentially is accusing the girl of being a whore by claiming she seduced him and did so with repeated advances. Even if that were true, and Schaap did not take advantage of her, and manipulate her (although I've seen court records of his letters to her that show otherwise), then Schaap should have taken the advice that is given in Proverbs chapters 5-7 about the whorish and strange woman. Not to mention that he was also married. What good is preaching on conquering temptation if you can't live by example (I Peter 5:3, Titus 2:12)? To conquer temptation requires you to BE tempted, and Schaap is blaming the temptation itself for his sin, as well as the frequency of the pressure. The story I cited about Joseph in the article shows that Potiphar's wife pursued Joseph DAILY ("day by day" Gen 39:10). So how's "day by day" for pressure? Furthermore, she (victim in Schaap's case) was always being given rides and escorts by his secretary. Kind of hard to claim she's pursuing you when you're the one offering and providing the transportation. I had many other issues with Schaap before this including his heretical position on the KJV and Bride Chamber theology, but I was relieved somewhat when it appeared that he manned up when he made his statement at his plea hearing, and I was prayerful that God might restore him and use him someday if he's truly saved. But then this came out, and I'm thinking the Jesuits snuck one into the FBC because no sane, saved person can really be that stupid, and with all of the chaos he's caused against Baptists and this girl over this, to open up that can of worms again makes him either the most selfish person ever, or it's a deliberate conspiracy (or both). I can't explain that kind of idiocy any other way.
  • Create New...