A new Bible Version: Fulfilled Covenant Bible

[thomas15]

On the contrary, I thrive on disagreement. But substantive disagreement. His disagreements are a shade or two more substantive than yours however. You are basically a one-line wise-cracker (though occasionally you rise above that). For the most part, Tom, you tend to rely on belittling the opponent, instead of contending with what is being said.

Over the last year or so I have asked many times in one form or another the question "where does the Bible teach the covenants of works, grace and redemption?"

There have been a few answers and/or responses offered but no one has really answered the question. And then there are the preterist like you Tom, who cannot make any real connection to bible prophecy and historical fact, you rely on "time text" and insist that the second coming of Jesus must have already happened. Since history records no such event, it is insisted that it is a "spiritual" event appreciated only by the enlightened.

And your response to all this has been either "I'm going to take my ball and go home" or "I have no respect for you". Try facing the fact that those with whom you have theological disagreement are actually serious about understanding the Bible.

John of Japan asks some fairly strightforward questions from the website you directed us to. Maybe you agree with them 100% and that is your right but the questions being asked deserve an honest answer.

 

[asterisktom]

Over the last year or so I have asked many times in one form or another the question "where does the Bible teach the covenants of works, grace and redemption?"
There have been a few answers and/or responses offered but no one has really answered the question.

Not sure why this is directed to me, but I don't believe in all those imagined separate covenants. The covenant of works is something that is eisegeted into the Bible, not drawn from it.

And then there are the preterist like you Tom, who cannot make any real connection to bible prophecy and historical fact, you rely on "time text" and insist that the second coming of Jesus must have already happened. Since history records no such event, it is insisted that it is a "spiritual" event appreciated only by the enlightened.

You answered your own question, Tom - except for the unwarranted characterizations (last five words). Moreover there are indeed historical facts to underscore the preterist interpretation, just not the ones you choose to focus on.

And your response to all this has been either "I'm going to take my ball and go home" or "I have no respect for you". Try facing the fact that those with whom you have theological disagreement are actually serious about understanding the Bible.

Oh please. Quit putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "I have no respect for you". I said ... well,never mind. Go read it yourself. Neither did I take my ball and go home. The gov't here shut the game down for me, for weeks at a time. If I go into greater detail, than I will probably lose access to my other site.

As you can see, you are not "on my iggy list", and then we can have serious discussion.

John of Japan asks some fairly strightforward questions from the website you directed us to. Maybe you agree with them 100% and that is your right but the questions being asked deserve an honest answer.

I gave honest answers, as much as I was able.

The tiresome thing here is that much of my time here is wasted in fencing off misleading innuendos and mischaracterizations. If it wasn't for those I suppose I would be writing more on these actual topics,like the use of "mello" or the "shortly" passages.

 

[John of Japan]

It will certainly be enough for those in your own gallery. But you really haven't thought it through. Neither do you understand what preterists are saying about "mello". An event can be several years off and still be, in God's eyes, "about to" happen.

Thank you for an excellent illustration of one reason preterism is wrong. You change words into the meanings you wish, instead of their commonly held meanings. As you your self say in your signature, "Literalism is a fatal disease." If the literal meaning of a word cannot be taken, we are all in trouble, and all sensible communication between people will fail.

For just one example (already given an unanswered), I find it quite ridiculous for the coming of John hundreds of years after elijah to be referred to in the translation as "about to come." That violates all possibilities of the meaning of "about to" in English.

What do you think about that passage?

I looked at your "proofs" here and honestly don't understand what the problem is.

Try this then. I'll rephrase one of my points. Was the editor (on the website you gave) right to say, "Some examples of futurist translation bias being addressed include: The blatant omission of the Greek word mello (about to), which is an imminent time indicator, from the KJV 106 times"? Do you agree with the editor that if mello is not translated like you want it to be (ergo, "about to"), then it is not even translated?

I say that linguistically speaking, the editor is ignoring the polysemy (multiple meanings) of mello in his insistence that it be translated "about to" by concordance (every rendering the same).

 

[John of Japan]

I want to give you respect, John, which Christ enjoins upon all of us who name the name of Christ.

I appreciate the sentiment (though I don't see where Christ commands respect, only love). But I'm not trying to win your respect, I'm trying to prove preterism wrong.

But when you act like this you make it hard for me to take you seriously.

That's because I wasn't being serious; my tongue was firmly in my cheek, something hard to see from China.

For the record, I don't think preterism is a cult, since it lacks: a strong leader, central control over individual lives, and a heretical doctrine of salvation. However, if a preterist teaches his doctrine in my church and causes division, he is then a heretic. (Note that I'm not calling you personally a heretic.)

 

[thomas15]

....The tiresome thing here is that much of my time here is wasted in fencing off misleading innuendos and mischaracterizations.

For example:

 

[Grasshopper]

Let's look at several of the places this Bible translates mello. First of all note Matt. 11:14--"This is Elijah, who was about to come." This is plainly wrong. It makes no sense that Elijah was "about to come" from the time that John the Baptist was prophesied until John actually came.

I agree on this one.

Note in Matt. 16:27--"For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father." But by preterist interpretation, this would be fulfilled almost 40 years later in 70 AD. So, 40 years later is "about to come"? No, "certainly come" is the meaning.

I think "is about to come"could fit this. 40 years could fit this event. Verse 28 clearly puts it in their lifetime.

Let's try Acts 11:28, "There was about to be a great famine throughout the Roman world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." This Caesar ruled from 41-44 AD, years later. How can years later be "about to be"?

Not that many years, again I think "about to be" fits just fine.

How about an epistle? In 1 Tim. 4:8 they have, "For bodily exercise profits a little: but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is about to come." Really? Timothy was about to die? That doesn't make sense.

Depends I guess on what you think Timothy is referring to.

I hope this thread continues, it could be profitable if we can just stick to the topic without the other nonsense. Thanks for the input JofJ, it's an important topic.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree on this one.

I think "is about to come"could fit this. 40 years could fit this event. Verse 28 clearly puts it in their lifetime.

Not that many years, again I think "about to be" fits just fine.

Depends I guess on what you think Timothy is referring to.

Have you ever in your entire life heard someone saying in English they were "about to" do something in 40 years? Even in one year? I haven't!

I hope this thread continues, it could be profitable if we can just stick to the topic without the other nonsense. Thanks for the input JofJ, it's an important topic.

Hopefully it will be a good thread. :wavey:

It isn't even necessarily against preterism to translate mello in more than one way. If the prospect is imminent, translating it "about to" is fine. If the prospect is certain, translating mello as "will certainly happen" is fine. Probably the main thing I am objecting to here is the editors who produced this Bible ostensibly knowing Greek and pontificating (with no training or experience) about mello and other Greek words on the one hand, but on the other being opposed to formal theological education.