The Bible is true, but what you heard about it is not.

[shauk100]

But be rest assured, Proper Preterism is even more exciting than this find.

We await baited breath to find out what is "proper preterism".

Not to mention what qualifies you to claim a third form of preterism that supersedes the others exists.

Kindest regards,

James

Start by refuting this short letter to an in-law of mine that is completely different than you'll hear from the churches or popular preterism .....

http://thechristianmythbusterseries.com/letter-law/

 

[shauk100]

Aaaaaannnddd the moron alarm has wakened me from slumber.

Oh yea, like you never made a typo or a mistake! WTH, that's all you have to say about it? Anymore stupid remarks and I won't reply to you.

 

[Bango Skank]

Mark 5:21 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. 22 Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” 24 So Jesus went with him. (NIV)

VS.

Matthew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.(NIV)

No contradiction, only a different writer added tot he story of what actually happened.

No contradiction? Sorry but your response does not make any sense, there is not just a addition. Either the daughter was dead or was not.

 

[shauk100]

No contradiction, only a different writer added tot he story of what actually happened.

No contradiction? Sorry but your response does not make any sense, there is not just a addition. Either the daughter was dead or was not.[/quote]

The Concordant Literal says this:

Mar 5:23 And he is entreating Him much, saying that "My little daughter is having her last gasp! ...that, "Coming, Thou mayest be placing Thy hands on her, that she may be saved and should be living!"


Plus, what about this??

Mar 5:35 While He is still speaking, they are coming from the chief of the synagogue, saying that "Your daughter died. Why are you still bothering the Teacher?

 

[SpecialFrog]

If you are looking for areas where the Bible is clearly wrong, there is always the flood. Not only is there essentially no evidence that it happened but there is significant evidence that it couldn't have happened. You can claim that God made the evidence look the way it does but you then have the same evidence as you have for Last Thursdayism.

No, it happened - the ark has even been found

Citation needed.

What neither one will admit is that the Bible teaches a local regional flood. Earth s/b translated land, every living soul etc. is only talking about every living soul in that particular land, below all the heaven s/b below the sky, etc.

I'm on the road at the moment without my various Bibles (though I generally go with the JPS translation for the OT). What translation agrees with you, exactly?

 

[shauk100]

I'm on the road at the moment without my various Bibles (though I generally go with the JPS translation for the OT). What translation agrees with you, exactly?

None exactly, because they're all biased, but some of the more accurate I like to research are the YLT, CLV, LXX while examining how words are used searching from the Hebrew and Greek words.

 

[Collecemall]

It seems I was too quck with my praise.I'm leaning toward being related to ACB now. And I though this was at least going to be interesting for a few days. Saddly it doesn't take me long to get bored with crazy.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oh yea, like you never made a typo or a mistake!

Sorry, but dismissing that sentence as a typo or mistake simply won't fly. You have to be completely ignorant of the rudiments of science in order to drop such a howler. Even typing the words 'inorganic carbon' should set off alarm bells. Do you know what the word 'organic' actually means?

[edited to add] I just noticed your edit, and the alarm has increased in intensity, because your repair doesn't make it make any more sense. I suggest you find out what the word 'organic' means before you drop any more idiotic howlers.

Seriously, you're not even wrong.[/edit]

WTH, that's all you have to say about it?

I could say much more, but since you've gotten your knickers in a twist over the highlighting of the above fuckwittery, I have a feeling you don't want to hear what I've got to say.

Anymore stupid remarks and I won't reply to you.

Promise?

Seriously, do you think I give a flying fuck whether you wish to chat to me or not? I'm not even talking to you, merely using your posts as a template for eviscerating stupid shit. I couldn't fucking care less whether you want to talk to me. It isn't like you have anything remotely interesting to say, being here only to preach your silly little masturbation fantasy like all the fuckwit apologists before you.

JAFA.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I'm on the road at the moment without my various Bibles (though I generally go with the JPS translation for the OT). What translation agrees with you, exactly?

None exactly, because they're all biased, but some of the more accurate I like to research are the YLT, CLV, LXX while examining how words are used searching from the Hebrew and Greek words.

No citation on the ark being found?

And how are you assessing the accuracy of various translations? How is your ancient Greek and Hebrew?

Also, how could a purely local flood cover the top of mount Ararat? Not to mention that all plant life in the area covered by water would die, making post-flood survival in the "land" impossible.

 

[DanDare]

Just chewing the popcorn. (I note a lack of popcorn emotie for this site. I will write a stiff letter to the times about it!)

 

[shauk100]

Do you know what the word 'organic' actually means?

organic: of, relating to, or derived from living matter. Just as I thought.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No citation on the ark being found?

If I am not mistaken, shauk100 is talking about this:

This is a natural formation that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geology can see from the images alone. Yet, shauk100 believes that (s)he knows more about it than the geologists and archaeologists that have researched it. One wonders what allows a biblical scholar to over ride the findings of actual scientists that have researched this formation.

Talk.Origins has a great debunk if this formation on their site.

 

[shauk100]

And how are you assessing the accuracy of various translations? How is your ancient Greek and Hebrew?

Also, how could a purely local flood cover the top of mount Ararat? Not to mention that all plant life in the area covered by water would die, making post-flood survival in the "land" impossible.

By pure discernment and careful, extensive word searches and how those words are used in scripture.

I don't know, but it apparently did. How could it be impossible?

How do you know some plant life did not survive?

 

[shauk100]

No citation on the ark being found?If I am not mistaken, shauk100 is talking about this:

This is a natural formation that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geology can see from the images alone. Yet, shauk100 believes that (s)he knows more about it than the geologists and archaeologists that have researched it. One wonders what allows a biblical scholar to over ride the findings of actual scientists that have researched this formation.

Can't you see that is a non-argument out of whole cloth? It's the age old "So and so doesn't believe it - so it can't be right because they have a degree." That's one method I learned a long time ago to stay away from, and it would do you well to do the same. Did you ever realize the majority is often wrong? All that's doing is putting your confidence in men, when scripture says (right in the middle of the Bible) Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. So, I evaluate from His word and if I'm wrong, then at least I'm not guilty of not doing my own homework.

FYI, there are several doctors (Baumgardner, Shea, and another one I can't remember, but it's easy to find) and geologist who endorsed the site, but I don't even need that because I have what I call proper preterism, which has not (in over 10 years) been refuted by the naysayers.

But you said "anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geology can see from the images alone." so why don't you tell us why it's so easily refuted by looking at the image alone.

 

[surreptitious57]

I hold to the 66 books called the Bible as holy inspired in the original languages ( translations ar not holy inspired )

Then presumably you shall have no problem in accepting the Koran as well. That was also holy inspired in its original language
In fact it was dictated to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel. So not written by multiple authors that did not always have first hand
experience of what it was they were writing about. And which in theory would make it closer to being of primary source material
than of secondary source and so more authentic. The Bible also has books missing such as the Gospels of Mary [ Magdalene ]
and Judas. Neither was it all written at the same time either so authors would have been unaware of the contributions of others

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Do you know what the word 'organic' actually means?

organic: of, relating to, or derived from living matter. Just as I thought.

I would not be as harsh as hackenslash, but in science (especially chemistry) organic means anything that contains carbon. However, you point out in popular terms, organic means something alive or once living. This does lead to some huge problems down the road when arguing. Someone will read something from a scientific source that says it was organic (scientific term) and think they meant it was organic (layperson term) and confuse the whole issue. This equivocation happens a lot, but it never seems intentional.

 

[tuxbox]

I hold to the 66 books called the Bible as holy inspired in the original languages ( translations ar not holy inspired )

Then presumably you shall have no problem in accepting the Koran as well. That was also holy inspired in its original language
In fact it was dictated to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel. So not written by multiple authors that did not always have first hand
experience of what it was they were writing about. And which in theory would make it closer to being of primary source material
than of secondary source and so more authentic. The Bible also has books missing such as the Gospels of Mary [ Magdalene ]
and Judas. Neither was it all written at the same time either so authors would have been unaware of the contributions of others

The devout will probably say, that the Bible was inspired by God and the Koran was inspired by a demon claiming to be the angel Gabriel.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Before I continue, I should point out some concerns I have.

Firstly, and undoubtedly, my main concern is the following statements you've made;

As mentioned earlier, from the above, I infer that you do not consider the bible the "inerrant Word of God", as many creationists appear to do.

Kindest regards,

James

James, thanks for that, and yes I do hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but translations are not. Translators by no means were, nor are holy inspired --- they often put their bias into the text.

I'm on the road at the moment without my various Bibles (though I generally go with the JPS translation for the OT). What translation agrees with you, exactly?

None exactly, because they're all biased, but some of the more accurate I like to research are the YLT, CLV, LXX while examining how words are used searching from the Hebrew and Greek words.

You've not clarified what you mean by claiming that "the bible is inerrant", whilst at the same time referring to translations as "biased, but some of the more accurate ..."

To what "bible" are you referring when you say "the bible"?

And, as SpecialFrog has mentioned, how can you discern which translations are "more accurate" if you're not already fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Koiné yourself?

If you're simply relying on dictionaries and translations that fit your preconceptions then you're suffering from confirmation bias - just as much as the translators whom you accuse.

You cite verses - sometimes with/without reference to versions - which further exacerbates the above paradoxical situation.

The CLT, which you've cited on occasion, has its critics (here for example).

[As an aside, John 2 19-22 - specifically verse 20 - suggests that Jesus (assuming he actually existed) was 46 when he died.]

Most cite the "authorised" KJV (1769, nevermind that of 1873) as "inerrant", notwithstanding that it differs from the original "authorised" KJB (1611).

The NIV is arguably the most accurate direct translation to English from the earliest extant primary sources, following a number of more recent discoveries of texts, which were not available for the above translations.

Secondly, I would also note you haven't properly addressed the responses/questions put to you by myself and others.

Also, having followed links from your cited "letter", I found the following review of your first book by Edward J Hassertt:

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful

Well written but it is difficult see how the conclusions follow from the premises used

By Edward J. Hassertt on February 15, 2014

Format: Kindle Edition

This book was well written, used a great deal of scripture and focused on a lot of key details of biblical prophecy. I cannot however recommend it because of the conclusions that the author comes to, some of the statements that author makes. There is also consistent misuse of scripture. He argues whole points from scripture but then makes radical leaps to his conclusions before the scripture warrants them. It makes it appear to the novice as if his thinking is exegetical, but in fact it uses many assumptions woven through the arguments that are subtle, but damaging to the text.

Any claim to have new biblical truth never before written by anyone should be seriously scrutinized. (pages ii, LVIII, 226) Such claims should fall idly by and be allowed to float without challenge.

The First section is on methodology and is pretty much sound but for a few details. His methods are sound but in many cases he does not follow them.

The Second section is an attempt to dismantle various doctrinal positions of futurists and full preterists. The problem is what arises from this section is a mishmash of view that contradict each other. He arbitrarily holds onto some sacred cows of futurism, and some points of preterism and weaves them into a basket with a hole through which the rest of his argument escapes. He holds to contradictory views on the rapture and resurrection. (145, 154-157, 188) These views permeate and draw down the rest of his position.

The Third section is the conclusion to which the rest of the book reaches. The whole third section reads like a political treatise on American Greatness and conspiracy theories. It discusses the Battle of Gog and Magog and identifies the key players in the mind of the author. This section is very long on speculation and very short on evidence. There are some very disturbing statements in this book about the various races, Jews and immigrants. (215, 224, 257, 320-21, 378, 380, 396, 418, 421, 425-26, 434).

I realize this book will appeal to a certain audience, but I cannot endorse the conclusions and some of the raw statements made by the author.

Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report abuse

I find I have to agree with Rev. Hassertt's review - much of which could equally apply to the lamented, and lamentable, abelcainsbrother, aka ACB.

Your two part "letter" - and indeed your claims - is of little value absent a peer-review of what you call "proper preterism" - you first need to submit/publish such a paper for academic examination.

You appear to believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, whilst taking translations with a pinch of salt. Your belief that the book of Revelations refers primarily to past - rather than future - events is nothing that a Catholic couldn't have told any (particularly American) Protestant.

Given that your belief in God stems from a belief that "the bible" is the "inerrant Word of God", this leaves you standing on nothing.

I trust that you won't take any of this as an ad hominen but I have the sinking feeling that I'm dealing with a ACB sound-alike whose views on the bible and what it means are pathologically skewed by preconceived notions of some revelatory nature known only to yourself.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[shauk100]

I would not be as harsh as hackenslash, but in science (especially chemistry) organic means anything that contains carbon. However, you point out in popular terms, organic means something alive or once living. This does lead to some huge problems down the road when arguing. Someone will read something from a scientific source that says it was organic (scientific term) and think they meant it was organic (layperson term) and confuse the whole issue. This equivocation happens a lot, but it never seems intentional.

Ok thanks, but I thought I put carbon, maybe I didn't.

 

[shauk100]

I find I have to agree with Rev. Hassertt's review - much of which could equally apply to the lamented, and lamentable, abelcainsbrother, aka ACB.

Your two part "letter" - and indeed your claims - is of little value absent a peer-review of what you call "proper preterism" - you first need to submit/publish such a paper for academic examination.

You appear to believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, whilst taking translations with a pinch of salt. Your belief that the book of Revelations refers primarily to past - rather than future - events is nothing that a Catholic couldn't have told any (particularly American) Protestant.

Given that your belief in God stems from a belief that "the bible" is the "inerrant Word of God", this leaves you standing on nothing.

I trust that you won't take any of this as an ad hominen but I have the sinking feeling that I'm dealing with a ACB sound-alike whose views on the bible and what it means are pathologically skewed by preconceived notions of some revelatory nature known only to yourself.

Kindest regards,

James

Hassert is a FULL PRETERIST, thus he has made up his mind and won't listen to logic that it is impossible for the remaining events (prophecy) of Rev 20:8ff (and forward) to the end of the book, CANNOT be fulfilled yet. Rev 20:4 BEGAN ca. 70AD (which also began the thousand years) with the destruction of Jerusalem (the great whore) and we are now living in the period after the thousand (Greek plural word -- not a literal thousand but signified by the binding and release of adversary) years and adversary (satan) is now loosed on the world scene wreaking havoc with he got and magog nations of the middle east coming over here, being deceived and waging war by this adversary (satan).