The New Interpreters’s Study Bible (no doubt by accident) makes a case for Preterism!

[Martin Marprelate]

Steve

Has Logos answered a single question posed to him?

Not in any meaningful or helpful way.
I suppose we must be grateful for what crumbs he does give us.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Answer to Logos 1 (Part 2)

Now we need to find the real meaning of Matt 10:23 and Col 1:23.

Col 1:23. ‘The Gospel which you heard, which was preached [or ‘proclaimed’] to every creature under heaven, of which I Paul, became a minister.’

Let’s look at something a little bit similar.

Luke 2:1. ‘And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.’

When was the decree proclaimed? When Augustus issued it. To whom was it proclaimed? To all the people under the rule of Augustus.

When was the Gospel proclaimed? According to Mark, the first words of the Lord Jesus’ public ministry were: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15). To whom was it proclaimed? To all those under the rule of Christ, or in other words, ‘To every creature under heaven.’ The Gospel was proclaimed by the Lord Jesus to every single person on earth- of every tribe, people group, nation and language (Rev 7:9). Not everybody heard it, of course, and that is why Paul was appointed a minister, and why Gospel ministers are still required today. But the Gospel was proclaimed to all men there and then, which is why Paul could tell the folk at Athens, ‘God…..now commands all men everywhere to repent’ (Acts 17:30). Not just the Athenians listening to him, but ‘Every creature under heaven.’

Just in case anyone thinks this is some sort of novel interpretation of my own, here is Matthew Henry on Col 1:23:-

IV. Concerning the preaching of this redemption. Here observe.
1. To whom it was preached: To every creature under heaven, that is, it was ordered to be preached to every creature, Mark 16:15. It may be preached to every creature, for the Gospel excludes none who do not exclude themselves.

Or Here is William Hendriksen on the same verse:-

That Gospel, moreover, was not meant for a select few- the Colossian errorists may well have considered themselves a select set!- nor was it confined to any particular region; on the contrary, it was the Gospel which, in obedience to the Lord’s command (Matt 28:19; esp. Mark 16:15), was preached among every creature under heaven. It recognized no boundaries whether racial, national or regional. It is always the ‘whosoever believeth’ Gospel.

Now let’s look at the other verse in question.

Matt 10:23. ‘For assuredly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities [Greek polis] of Israel before the Son of Man comes.’

We have seen that it is utterly incredible that the Apostles would spend forty years and still not have reached the major settlements (‘walled cities’) of Israel. So what does the verse mean? There are two possible alternatives. Either is good. I personally favour the second, but I can well imagine that my Dispensationalist friends would prefer the first.

1. The Lord Jesus was saying that the assignment that He had given the Twelve was only a temporary one. The apostles would not get around the cities of Israel before the risen Christ would come to them with new instructions. From that time, they were to go, not just to Israel, but to the whole world (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8 etc.).

2. If you look at all the usages of ‘Israel’ in the N.T., you will see that it is never (I think) used with reference to travelling to, from or around that country. ‘Judea, ‘Gallilee’ and ‘Samaria’ are used for that (eg. Mark 10:1; Luke 4:44). ‘Israel’ usually refers to either the O.T. or the N.T. people of God. In Matt 10:23, our Lord is telling them that they and the missionaries who would come after them would scarcely finish getting around all the cities where God’s elect people dwell before He would come in glory. This interpretation is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:14, and also with what we see today. The Gospel is going out all around the world, but there are still many major cities where there are almost no Christians. There is therefore still work to be done and we can in a sense, ‘hasten’ His Coming (2Peter 3:12) by reaching out to our neighbours and supporting missionary work throughout the world.

Steve

 

[Logos1]

Thanks for the Love Steve and Merry Christmas veryone

I’ve been busy preparing for Christmas travels so have not been able to post this evening. Wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

I haven’t really been able to figure out which side is right side up on Steve’s epistles over the last day here, but I feel the love he is sending my way. I appreciate all the time and effort he spends to impress me. I feel like I’m receiving roses as best he knows how to send them and being wooed by a winsome lover.

I think if oldregular will brand it heresy then it has to be good stuff. It’s like the good housekeeping seal of approval if he labels it heretical. I always find it validating when he admonishes me for heresy.

Since we know Christ returned in 70 AD and won’t be coming back in the next few days (or centuries or eons) I’ll see you all on the flip side of my travels Lord willing. Just remember what they say, inside every futurist is a cocoon with a Preterist waiting to be released from the shackles of denial to embracing the victory of Christ.

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[Logos1]

LOGO


Though Jesus Christ comments only on the destruction of the Temple His disciples ask Him two questions As for attempting to explain those parts of Chapter 24 that address each question I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of LOGO.

Greetings oldregular--hope you had as Merry a Christmas as I did.

I want you to know I asked Santa to leave you some futurists bible verses so you wouldn't have to pretend with the preterists ones and can support your positions with at least some verses that would be futurist oriented just to make it fair

Actually Chapter 24 shows Christ doing a great job of tying the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and his return all into one event.

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[Logos1]

If the verse is to be taken in a crudely literal fashion, then Christ must have returned around AD 45 or 50. It certainly wouldn't have taken twelve apostles anything like 40 years to get around the towns of 1st Century Israel.

Steve

Hope you had as Merry a Christmas as I did Steve!

I think I have finally come to understand where you are coming from--You are not exactly a futuriss--since you are thinking in terms of a 45 - 50 return of Christ and not a Preterist since we tie Christ's return to scripture related to 70 AD.

I understand now that you practice Steveism which is your own unique view on eschatology.

Although I would have to ask you did anybody report actually seeing Christ return in 45 - 50 AD? Do you have any biblical support for such as position?

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hope you had as Merry a Christmas as I did Steve!

that is hard to know because you don't say how merry a time you had. But in fact I had a very merry Christmas, thank you.

I think I have finally come to understand where you are coming from--You are not exactly a futurist--since you are thinking in terms of a 45 - 50 return of Christ and not a Preterist since we tie Christ's return to scripture related to 70 AD.

I understand now that you practice Steveism which is your own unique view on eschatology.

Although I would have to ask you did anybody report actually seeing Christ return in 45 - 50 AD? Do you have any biblical support for such as position?

I have exactly as many people reporting Christ coming in AD 45 as you have for Him coming in AD 70; to whit, None.
My Biblical support is much better than yours because it could not possibly take 12 Apostles as long as 40 years to get around the cities of Israel.

Now would you like to deal with the detail of my two previous posts, please? You said earlier that you could feel the love from me. What I am feeling from you is evasion.

Steve

 

[OldRegular]

I have exactly as many people reporting Christ coming in AD 45 as you have for Him coming in AD 70; to whit, None.
My Biblical support is much better than yours because it could not possibly take 12 Apostles as long as 40 years to get around the cities of Israel.

Now would you like to deal with the detail of my two previous posts, please? You said earlier that you could feel the love from me. What I am feeling from you is evasion.

Steve

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Logos1]

Preterism 12 Steveism 0

that is hard to know because you don't say how merry a time you had. But in fact I had a very merry Christmas, thank you.


I have exactly as many people reporting Christ coming in AD 45 as you have for Him coming in AD 70; to whit, None.
My Biblical support is much better than yours because it could not possibly take 12 Apostles as long as 40 years to get around the cities of Israel.

Now would you like to deal with the detail of my two previous posts, please? You said earlier that you could feel the love from me. What I am feeling from you is evasion.

Steve

Jolly good for you Steve.

You are really feeling your oats with this Steveism—in view of Matthew 10:23

"I tell you with certainty that you will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

Not many people would directly dispute the words of Christ when He tells us something with certainty. You must really be certain of your Steveism eschatology.

So do you have any other places where you disagree with our Lord and Savior that you would like to share with us?

LOL, I’ll leave it up to you to decide what you feel. I don’t even know what you are trying to say—but I’m not an adherent of Steveism so it’s really not important to me.

By the way do you have anybody from 70 AD reporting that Christ didn’t come back then?

The Apostles question of Matthew 24:3 certainly tells us when the temple would be destroyed is when the end of the age would be and that is when he would come back—and that just happen to be 70 AD. So therefore I have 12, count’em twelve, a whole dozen witnesses to the Preterist view point. So far that makes the score

Preterism 12
Steveism 0

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is a remarkable thing about Hyper-pretrists that they don't like dealing with difficult issues. Tom Riddle gets all offended and refuses to carry on the debate, whle Logos 1 tries (and fails) to be funny. What they won't do is answer the question.

earlier on in this thread, I asked a question to Logos which he was most reluctant to answer, How come the Gospel had been (according to you) preached in all the Roman world ('proclaimed to every creature under heaven') by around AD 60-61, yet the Apostles hadn't finished going through all the cities in Israel by AD 70?

After asking this four or five times, I got this back:-

Really Steve--LOL! Do you not see that their [sic] is a difference between going through every little town and backwater of Israel and being able to take the Gospel to the major cities of the Mediterranean area.
Every creature in your book has to mean every camel, dog, and gnat, but most of us recognize it for what it is--remember when the dream turned Paul away from one city so he could go to another.
If Christ said they wouldn't go through the towns of Israel before he came that would be good enough for most believers--where do get off disputing the words of Christ
If Paul said it had been taken to the world--your want to argue with him-not me I'm just pointing it out.

To which I replied:-

This is how to be a Hyper-preterist. You take the exact opposite of what is said, and make that your argument. Did Paul say that the Gospel had been proclaimed ‘To every creature under heaven’? Well that must mean ‘The major cities of the Mediterranean.’ Did our Lord say, ‘The cities of Israel’? Well, He must have meant ‘every little town and backwater.’ Actually, no! He didn’t mean that. The Greek word for ‘city’ is polis. Its precise meaning is a town or city that is walled. Only the larger cities had a wall around them. The word for a town or village without a wall is kome. In Matt 10:11, the Lord Jesus puts the two together and distinguishes them: ‘Now, whatever city [Gk. polis] or town [Gk. kome] you enter….’ The two words also appear together in Matt 9:35; Luke 8:1, and 13:22.

So in Matt 10:23, our Lord is saying, “You will not have gone through even the larger, walled towns of Israel before I return.” If He had wanted to mention the villages and ‘backwaters’ He could easily have done so. I repeat; there is no way in the world that it would have taken the disciples forty years (AD 30-70) to ‘go through’ the larger cities of Israel. So am I really suggesting that Christ returned around AD 35? Of course not! There is a much easier and simpler explanation.

As I went on to point out, there are actualy two possible explanations of Matt 10:23, both of them much simpler and more credible than the Hyper-preterist one. I wrote:-

Matt 10:23. ‘For assuredly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities [Greek polis] of Israel before the Son of Man comes.’

We have seen that it is utterly incredible that the Apostles would spend forty years and still not have reached the major settlements (‘walled cities’) of Israel. So what does the verse mean? There are two possible alternatives. Either is good. I personally favour the second, but I can well imagine that my Dispensationalist friends would prefer the first.

1. The Lord Jesus was saying that the assignment that He had given the Twelve was only a temporary one. The apostles would not get around the cities of Israel before the risen Christ would come to them with new instructions. From that time, they were to go, not just to Israel, but to the whole world (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8 etc.).

2. If you look at all the usages of ‘Israel’ in the N.T., you will see that it is never (I think) used with reference to travelling to, from or around that country. ‘Judea, ‘Gallilee’ and ‘Samaria’ are used for that (eg. Mark 10:1; Luke 4:44). ‘Israel’ usually refers to either the O.T. or the N.T. people of God. In Matt 10:23, our Lord is telling them that they and the missionaries who would come after them would scarcely finish getting around all the cities where God’s elect people dwell before He would come in glory. This interpretation is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:14, and also with what we see today. The Gospel is going out all around the world, but there are still many major cities where there are almost no Christians, let alone the country-side areas where the Gospal has never so much as been heard. There is therefore still work to be done and we can in a sense, ‘hasten’ His Coming (2Peter 3:12) by reaching out to our neighbours and supporting missionary work throughout the world.

It would be nice to get some sort of sensible reply to this from Logos, but I'm not holding my breath.

Steve

 

[OldRegular]

2. If you look at all the usages of ‘Israel’ in the N.T., you will see that it is never (I think) used with reference to travelling to, from or around that country. ‘Judea, ‘Gallilee’ and ‘Samaria’ are used for that (eg. Mark 10:1; Luke 4:44). ‘Israel’ usually refers to either the O.T. or the N.T. people of God. In Matt 10:23, our Lord is telling them that they and the missionaries who would come after them would scarcely finish getting around all the cities where God’s elect people dwell before He would come in glory. This interpretation is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:14, and also with what we see today. The Gospel is going out all around the world, but there are still many major cities where there are almost no Christians, let alone the country-side areas where the Gospal has never so much as been heard. There is therefore still work to be done and we can in a sense, ‘hasten’ His Coming (2Peter 3:12) by reaching out to our neighbours and supporting missionary work throughout the world.

Steve

Well said Steve!

It would be nice to get some sort of sensible reply to this from Logos, but I'm not holding my breath.

Steve

Please don't!. Hold your breath, that is!

 

[Logos1]

When is an answer a non-answer: When it is hyper-twisted - LOL!

It is a remarkable thing about Hyper-pretrists that they don't like dealing with difficult issues. Tom Riddle gets all offended and refuses to carry on the debate, whle Logos 1 tries (and fails) to be funny. What they won't do is answer the question.

earlier on in this thread, I asked a question to Logos which he was most reluctant to answer, How come the Gospel had been (according to you) preached in all the Roman world ('proclaimed to every creature under heaven') by around AD 60-61, yet the Apostles hadn't finished going through all the cities in Israel by AD 70?

After asking this four or five times, I got this back:-



To which I replied:-


As I went on to point out, there are actualy two possible explanations of Matt 10:23, both of them much simpler and more credible than the Hyper-preterist one. I wrote:-

Matt 10:23. ‘For assuredly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities [Greek polis] of Israel before the Son of Man comes.’

We have seen that it is utterly incredible that the Apostles would spend forty years and still not have reached the major settlements (‘walled cities’) of Israel. So what does the verse mean? There are two possible alternatives. Either is good. I personally favour the second, but I can well imagine that my Dispensationalist friends would prefer the first.

1. The Lord Jesus was saying that the assignment that He had given the Twelve was only a temporary one. The apostles would not get around the cities of Israel before the risen Christ would come to them with new instructions. From that time, they were to go, not just to Israel, but to the whole world (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8 etc.).

2. If you look at all the usages of ‘Israel’ in the N.T., you will see that it is never (I think) used with reference to travelling to, from or around that country. ‘Judea, ‘Gallilee’ and ‘Samaria’ are used for that (eg. Mark 10:1; Luke 4:44). ‘Israel’ usually refers to either the O.T. or the N.T. people of God. In Matt 10:23, our Lord is telling them that they and the missionaries who would come after them would scarcely finish getting around all the cities where God’s elect people dwell before He would come in glory. This interpretation is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:14, and also with what we see today. The Gospel is going out all around the world, but there are still many major cities where there are almost no Christians, let alone the country-side areas where the Gospal has never so much as been heard. There is therefore still work to be done and we can in a sense, ‘hasten’ His Coming (2Peter 3:12) by reaching out to our neighbours and supporting missionary work throughout the world.

It would be nice to get some sort of sensible reply to this from Logos, but I'm not holding my breath.

Steve

What is so interesting here is how much time, effort, and imagination you will put into trying to deny the words of Christ and twist them into something he didn’t say.

It aligns neatly with your effort to twist an answer to your question into a non-answer.

Hmmm, Steve is dedicated hyper-twister. Is this a tenant of Steveism?

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Logos ducks the issue AGAIN

What is so interesting here is how much time, effort, and imagination you will put into trying to deny the words of Christ and twist them into something he didn’t say.

It aligns neatly with your effort to twist an answer to your question into a non-answer.

What I would call a non-answer is what you have written above.
How about actually dealing with the issues I have raised.

Once again, I'm not holding my breath.

steve

 

[asterisktom]

It is a remarkable thing about Hyper-pretrists that they don't like dealing with difficult issues. Tom Riddle gets all offended and refuses to carry on the debate, whle Logos 1 tries (and fails) to be funny. What they won't do is answer the question.

...

Steve

A quick comment here from "Tom Riddle": There are reasons why I am not writing here now, but it is not about my getting "all offended".

1. It is the fact that the points I had raised, especially in the 1st Cor. post, were never addressed, except in the usual way of "Yea, then what about this (unrelated) verse?"

2. I am with family, some of whom I suspect I will never see again once I leave for China. It is called "Having a life." If you had one, Martin, you would have at least considered that possibility in my case.

3. Several here just don't read carefully or accurately - and then respond with irrelevant comments based on their skim-over reading. Case in point here is you, Martin, not even getting my name right. If you can't even hold onto a person's name what reason do I have in extended involved conversations with you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A quick comment here from "Tom Riddle": There are reasons why I am not writing here now, but it is not about my getting "all offended".

The Christmas break is one of the few times when, being off work, I am able to give a little more attention to discussion forums. I can appreciate that this is not the case for everyone. You do however have a habit of becoming conveniently offended when you get asked searching questions so that you don't have to answer them.

1. It is the fact that the points I had raised, especially in the 1st Cor. post, were never addressed, except in the usual way of "Yea, then what about this (unrelated) verse?"

You may think the verse is unrelated, but perhaps others don't. There is no point in demolishing a building brick by brick, when a strategically placed stick of dynamite will bring the whole edifice down in a moment. Personally, I had neither time nor energy nor inclination to wade all through 1 Cor 13-15 when 15:20 refutes your whole argument.

2. I am with family, some of whom I suspect I will never see again once I leave for China. It is called "Having a life." If you had one, Martin, you would have at least considered that possibility in my case.

I hope you're having a great time.

3. Several here just don't read carefully or accurately - and then respond with irrelevant comments based on their skim-over reading.

Well, you need to have a little patience, don't you? You need to answer the questions people ask or the points they raise, and then direct them back to what you consider to be the important point. In this thread, I asked the same question of Logos 4 or 5 times before I got something vaguely resembling an answer. That's the nature of forums like these and you have to live with it.

Case in point here is you, Martin, not even getting my name right. If you can't even hold onto a person's name what reason do I have in extended involved conversations with you?

I apologize for mis-spelling your name. If that is the worst error I make on this forum, I shall be very surprised and very grateful.

Steve

 

[mandym]

Martin, not even getting my name right. If you can't even hold onto a person's name what reason do I have in extended involved conversations with you?

It is difficult to take you seriously with statements like this.

 

[asterisktom]

deleted. Just not worth it.

 

[asterisktom]

The Christmas break is one of the few times when, being off work, I am able to give a little more attention to discussion forums. I can appreciate that this is not the case for everyone. You do however have a habit of becoming conveniently offended when you get asked searching questions so that you don't have to answer them.


You may think the verse is unrelated, but perhaps others don't. There is no point in demolishing a building brick by brick, when a strategically placed stick of dynamite will bring the whole edifice down in a moment. Personally, I had neither time nor energy nor inclination to wade all through 1 Cor 13-15 when 15:20 refutes your whole argument.

I hope you're having a great time.

Well, you need to have a little patience, don't you? You need to answer the questions people ask or the points they raise, and then direct them back to what you consider to be the important point. In this thread, I asked the same question of Logos 4 or 5 times before I got something vaguely resembling an answer. That's the nature of forums like these and you have to live with it.


I apologize for mis-spelling your name. If that is the worst error I make on this forum, I shall be very surprised and very grateful.

Steve

Well, Steve, let me start again here. You may indeed have just misspelled my name. In that case I accused you wrongly. I am sorry about that.

I'll let the one point stand alone. If I have time I will answer the rest of your post later.

 

[OldRegular]

This problem could be resolved and we might all become hyper-preterists if someone would just provide the evidence of the visible return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD. Scripture clearly states that His return would be visible:

Acts 1:6-11
6. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
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.
8. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11. Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Revelation 1:7
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

[asterisktom]

This problem could be resolved and we might all become hyper-preterists if someone would just provide the evidence of the visible return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD. Scripture clearly states that His return would be visible:

Acts 1:6-11
6. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
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.
8. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11. Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Revelation 1:7
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I hope that you will see my point that there are different kinds of seeing in Scripture. When Jesus told Nathan that he would "see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" what exactly did He prophesy? What did Nathan actually see? If his seeing was anything less than a visible sight of clearly visible angels why should it seem strange to argue for seeing Christ the same way?

 

[OldRegular]

I hope that you will see my point that there are different kinds of seeing in Scripture. When Jesus told Nathan that he would "see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" what exactly did He prophesy? What did Nathan actually see? If his seeing was anything less than a visible sight of clearly visible angels why should it seem strange to argue for seeing Christ the same way?

I agree that a metaphor is frequently used in Scripture but I think the passage from Acts cannot be written off that simply.