[sasportas]

Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, per Prof. Gundry shows in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.

Amongst a mountain of historic proof in the ECF, pretribs dismiss with the back of their hand, meanwhile turning to this incoherent “false” Ephraem character, as if he is the last word on the historic proof before Darby issue. Incredible, I tell you. Why not look to the true Ephraem instead of false Ephraem? Dishonest scholarship, in my view.

Bottom line: using false Ephraem for “proof” - instead of the ECF and the “true” Ephraem - is grasping at straws.

Chips on your shoulders, eh? Well, that is it as far as I’m concerned. This is my last to you. Find you somebody else to insult. Bye.

[MHGinTN]

*grins* See ya

[sasportas]

I should read what I type before I post it. Like this statement, which I make more sensible:

Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, as Prof. Gundry has shown in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.