Replies

Well, let's look at the record accorded by the thread to date. Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

Are you familiar with Omarosa? She, too, thought she was doing the Lord's work and got upset when others dared to question her. It seems awfully familiar. She also lacked a sense of her actual place in the group dynamic.

Case in point Matthew 17:9. Pointed out to prove something that it doesn't prove. And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy. Finding ten verses that don't mention that fact doesn't nullify it. I even gave a secondary reference to show that the meaning is intended and still you argue.

You actually argued against your own point, and showed how the word used in the Scripture could be taken in one way or in another. So you have still, to this day, provided no justification for taking what is given as a secondary meaning for the word "vision" instead of the primary meaning.

It isn't as simple as you saying that your interpretation is "Scripture" and ours isn't. You'll need to address this honestly sometime. Why did you choose that one particular definition?

So you have still, to this day, provided no justification for taking what is given as a secondary meaning for the word "vision" instead of the primary meaning.

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.