Comments for American Vision http://americanvision.org Thu, 24 May 2012 21:44:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on “The World Is Getting Better” Says Triangulation—Earthquakes and the End Revisited by Alex Alexanderhttp://americanvision.org/1712/earthquakes-end-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-305260 Alex Alexander Thu, 24 May 2012 21:44:59 +0000 http://americanvision.org/2004/post/earthquakes-end-revisited/#comment-305260 Dear Gary, I hope your inquirer realises that there are LOTS of good believers (like YOU, Sister), who have also come to see things differently. It's good to review (biblically) stuff we Evangelicals have (wrongly) take for granted for years. To truncate and repeat her response to you (and to American Vision): Thank you. Alex A UK Dear Gary,
I hope your inquirer realises that there are LOTS of good believers (like YOU, Sister), who have also come to see things differently. It’s good to review (biblically) stuff we Evangelicals have (wrongly) take for granted for years.
To truncate and repeat her response to you (and to American Vision): Thank you.
Alex A
UK

]]> Comment on Restoring Constitutional Confidence from “Despotic Branches” — The Court or the Constitution? Part 3 by Vonhttp://americanvision.org/5797/the-court-or-the-constitutuion-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-305207 Von Thu, 24 May 2012 18:16:16 +0000 http://americanvision.org/?p=5797#comment-305207 Great article, Mr. Darnell. Looking forward to more... Great article, Mr. Darnell. Looking forward to more…

]]> Comment on The Antichrist Fraud by Terry Brownhttp://americanvision.org/1713/antichrist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-305206 Terry Brown Thu, 24 May 2012 18:08:39 +0000 http://americanvision.org/2004/post/antichrist-fraud/#comment-305206 It is worthy of note that sensationalistic dispensational eschatology was popularized in the 1970's by the non-fiction writings of Lindsay and the like, who attempted to explain God's Word from the daily newspapers but who at least made a serious effort however misguided, to the completely fictitious nonsense of the present time like the Left Behind series which is taken seriously by many believers. It is time for those of us who claim to believe the Bible to take seriously the responsibility to read ALL of the Bible (including the nearly forgotten Old Testament) and to carefully work out our beliefs based on this serious Bible study instead of allowing ourselves to be spoon-fed by purveyors of sensational ideas that may be exciting and tickle our fancies, but fall far short of a serious understanding of the greatest of all books. The Word of God must be its own interpreter, not fairy tails and fanciful teachings that pass for serious Biblical exposition. It is worthy of note that sensationalistic dispensational eschatology was popularized in the 1970′s by the non-fiction writings of Lindsay and the like, who attempted to explain God’s Word from the daily newspapers but who at least made a serious effort however misguided, to the completely fictitious nonsense of the present time like the Left Behind series which is taken seriously by many believers. It is time for those of us who claim to believe the Bible to take seriously the responsibility to read ALL of the Bible (including the nearly forgotten Old Testament) and to carefully work out our beliefs based on this serious Bible study instead of allowing ourselves to be spoon-fed by purveyors of sensational ideas that may be exciting and tickle our fancies, but fall far short of a serious understanding of the greatest of all books. The Word of God must be its own interpreter, not fairy tails and fanciful teachings that pass for serious Biblical exposition.

]]> Comment on The “passing” away of heaven and earth in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 by Mike Sullivanhttp://americanvision.org/5738/the-passing-away-of-heaven-and-earth-in-revelation-2011-and-211-4/comment-page-2/#comment-305168 Mike Sullivan Thu, 24 May 2012 16:10:29 +0000 http://americanvision.org/?p=5738#comment-305168 A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO PARTIAL PRETERIST JOEL MCDURMON’S ARTICLE “THE ‘PASSING’ AWAY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN REVELATION 20:11 AND 20:1”PART 1By: Michael J. SullivanWe once again turn our attention to the arbitrary hermeneutics of Partial Preterism (PP) in examining an article produced by American Vision’s Joel McDurmon as to why he feels the de-creation of Revelation 20:11 is referring to a future fulfillment of planet earth, whereas 21:1ff. is a spiritual fulfillment referring to a covenantal transition taking place in AD 70. Since in this article McDurmon cites and bids us to read two of his articles on 2 Peter 3, this is where we too will begin – making this a 2 or 3 part series in response. Perhaps the PP confusion over 2 Peter 3 is a good starting point in examining their arbitrary hermeneutics:• If 2 Peter 3 should be interpreted within the AD 70 contextual flow that 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 give it, shouldn’t this approach be used in Revelation 20:10-15? What of the AD 70 flow of chapters 1-19 or 21-22?!? Or the internal parallels between Revelation 16 and 20?• If 2 Peter 3 should be paralleled to Matthew 24-25, why can’t Revelation 20:10-15?• If 2 Peter 3, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21-22 can use Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65 material to be referring to an AD 70 fulfillment or transition between OC and NC worlds/creations, why can’t Revelation 20:11ff.?• If the “X” of the “elements” of the “world” or “heaven and earth” of (2 Peter 3) is “ONLY” referring to the Old Covenant world and not the planet earth, how does Peter’s prediction get changed to be referring to the LITERAL elements of the planet earth at the end of history too?• And closely associated with the previous point -- how can PP claim Dispensationalists and Amillennialists can’t come to Matthew 24 or the majority of the book of Revelation and state AD 70 was only a “typological” “partial” “mixed” “already not yet” kind of fulfillment, when PP turn around and have to resort to using this same lingo in debating FP? Curious indeed.To view full article go here:http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189:mike-sullivan&catid=35:preterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&Itemid=77 A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO PARTIAL PRETERIST JOEL MCDURMON’S ARTICLE “THE ‘PASSING’ AWAY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN REVELATION 20:11 AND 20:1”

PART 1

By: Michael J. Sullivan

We once again turn our attention to the arbitrary hermeneutics of Partial Preterism (PP) in examining an article produced by American Vision’s Joel McDurmon as to why he feels the de-creation of Revelation 20:11 is referring to a future fulfillment of planet earth, whereas 21:1ff. is a spiritual fulfillment referring to a covenantal transition taking place in AD 70. Since in this article McDurmon cites and bids us to read two of his articles on 2 Peter 3, this is where we too will begin – making this a 2 or 3 part series in response. Perhaps the PP confusion over 2 Peter 3 is a good starting point in examining their arbitrary hermeneutics:

• If 2 Peter 3 should be interpreted within the AD 70 contextual flow that 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 give it, shouldn’t this approach be used in Revelation 20:10-15? What of the AD 70 flow of chapters 1-19 or 21-22?!? Or the internal parallels between Revelation 16 and 20?

• If 2 Peter 3 should be paralleled to Matthew 24-25, why can’t Revelation 20:10-15?

• If 2 Peter 3, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21-22 can use Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65 material to be referring to an AD 70 fulfillment or transition between OC and NC worlds/creations, why can’t Revelation 20:11ff.?

• If the “X” of the “elements” of the “world” or “heaven and earth” of (2 Peter 3) is “ONLY” referring to the Old Covenant world and not the planet earth, how does Peter’s prediction get changed to be referring to the LITERAL elements of the planet earth at the end of history too?

• And closely associated with the previous point — how can PP claim Dispensationalists and Amillennialists can’t come to Matthew 24 or the majority of the book of Revelation and state AD 70 was only a “typological” “partial” “mixed” “already not yet” kind of fulfillment, when PP turn around and have to resort to using this same lingo in debating FP? Curious indeed.

To view full article go here:

http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189:mike-sullivan&catid=35:preterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&Itemid=77

]]> Comment on New Creation, Adorned by Mike Sullivanhttp://americanvision.org/5526/a-new-creation-adorned/comment-page-2/#comment-305164 Mike Sullivan Thu, 24 May 2012 15:58:14 +0000 http://americanvision.org/?p=5526#comment-305164 A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO PARTIAL PRETERIST JOEL MCDURMON’S ARTICLE “THE ‘PASSING’ AWAY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN REVELATION 20:11 AND 20:1”PART 1By: Michael J. SullivanWe once again turn our attention to the arbitrary hermeneutics of Partial Preterism (PP) in examining an article produced by American Vision’s Joel McDurmon as to why he feels the de-creation of Revelation 20:11 is referring to a future fulfillment of planet earth, whereas 21:1ff. is a spiritual fulfillment referring to a covenantal transition taking place in AD 70. Since in this article McDurmon cites and bids us to read two of his articles on 2 Peter 3, this is where we too will begin – making this a 2 or 3 part series in response. Perhaps the PP confusion over 2 Peter 3 is a good starting point in examining their arbitrary hermeneutics:• If 2 Peter 3 should be interpreted within the AD 70 contextual flow that 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 give it, shouldn’t this approach be used in Revelation 20:10-15?• If 2 Peter 3 should be paralleled to Matthew 24-25, why can’t Revelation 20:10-15?• If 2 Peter 3, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21-22 can use Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65 material to be referring to an AD 70 fulfillment or transition between OC and NC worlds/creations, why can’t Revelation 20:11ff.?• If the “X” of the “elements” of the “world” or “heaven and earth” of (2 Peter 3) is “ONLY” referring to the Old Covenant world and not the planet earth, how does Peter’s prediction also get changed to be referring to the LITERAL elements of the planet earth at the end of history?• And closely associated with the previous point -- how can PP claim Dispensationalists and Amillennialists can’t come to Matthew 24 or the majority of the book of Revelation and state AD 70 was only a “typological” “partial” “mixed” “already not yet” kind of fulfillment, when PP turn around and have to resort to using the same lingo in debating FP? Curious indeed.To view full article go to my site:http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189:mike-sullivan&catid=35:preterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&Itemid=77 A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO PARTIAL PRETERIST JOEL MCDURMON’S ARTICLE “THE ‘PASSING’ AWAY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN REVELATION 20:11 AND 20:1”

PART 1

By: Michael J. Sullivan

We once again turn our attention to the arbitrary hermeneutics of Partial Preterism (PP) in examining an article produced by American Vision’s Joel McDurmon as to why he feels the de-creation of Revelation 20:11 is referring to a future fulfillment of planet earth, whereas 21:1ff. is a spiritual fulfillment referring to a covenantal transition taking place in AD 70. Since in this article McDurmon cites and bids us to read two of his articles on 2 Peter 3, this is where we too will begin – making this a 2 or 3 part series in response. Perhaps the PP confusion over 2 Peter 3 is a good starting point in examining their arbitrary hermeneutics:

• If 2 Peter 3 should be interpreted within the AD 70 contextual flow that 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 give it, shouldn’t this approach be used in Revelation 20:10-15?

• If 2 Peter 3 should be paralleled to Matthew 24-25, why can’t Revelation 20:10-15?

• If 2 Peter 3, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21-22 can use Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65 material to be referring to an AD 70 fulfillment or transition between OC and NC worlds/creations, why can’t Revelation 20:11ff.?

• If the “X” of the “elements” of the “world” or “heaven and earth” of (2 Peter 3) is “ONLY” referring to the Old Covenant world and not the planet earth, how does Peter’s prediction also get changed to be referring to the LITERAL elements of the planet earth at the end of history?

• And closely associated with the previous point — how can PP claim Dispensationalists and Amillennialists can’t come to Matthew 24 or the majority of the book of Revelation and state AD 70 was only a “typological” “partial” “mixed” “already not yet” kind of fulfillment, when PP turn around and have to resort to using the same lingo in debating FP? Curious indeed.

To view full article go to my site:

http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189:mike-sullivan&catid=35:preterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&Itemid=77

]]> Comment on Slavery, Sterilization, Sodomy & Abortion—The Legacy of Judicial Supremacy: The Court or the Constitution? Part 2 by Vonhttp://americanvision.org/5775/slavery-sterilization-sodomy-abortion-the-legacy-of-judicial-supremacy-the-court-or-the-constitution-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-305124 Von Thu, 24 May 2012 13:50:27 +0000 http://americanvision.org/?p=5775#comment-305124 Great article.A question, though. Would you not agree that it is to the Bible, and not the constitution, that we must look for the actual foundation for our laws? That a law, even if 'constitutional' must fail if it is not Biblical? Great article.

A question, though. Would you not agree that it is to the Bible, and not the constitution, that we must look for the actual foundation for our laws? That a law, even if ‘constitutional’ must fail if it is not Biblical?

]]> Comment on All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26 by Ted R. Weilandhttp://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-on-romans/comment-page-1/#comment-305114 Ted R. Weiland Thu, 24 May 2012 13:11:18 +0000 http://americanvision.org/2004/post/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-on-romans/#comment-305114 "Nations," John, not "Gentiles"! (I see you're continuing to improperly capitalize the word.) Which then requires that we ask the question, "what nations?" The context and the Old Testament prophecies cited or referred to (like Hosea 1 and 2, referenced by Paul in Romans 9) are the only legitimate means for us to then determine the answer to that question.The context, the fact that Jews or Judahites only refers to two tribes rather than all twelve tribes, other internal evidence, and the Prophets all prove that, for example, the ethne/nations in Romans 9:23-26, are the ten tribes.Paul even says “As he also says in Hosea…” Well, what did He say in Hosea? He didn’t say that He was going to call non-Israelites His people or the children of the living God. HE SAID THAT about the ten tribes whom were about to be divorced. “Nations,” John, not “Gentiles”! (I see you’re continuing to improperly capitalize the word.) Which then requires that we ask the question, “what nations?” The context and the Old Testament prophecies cited or referred to (like Hosea 1 and 2, referenced by Paul in Romans 9) are the only legitimate means for us to then determine the answer to that question.

The context, the fact that Jews or Judahites only refers to two tribes rather than all twelve tribes, other internal evidence, and the Prophets all prove that, for example, the ethne/nations in Romans 9:23-26, are the ten tribes.

Paul even says “As he also says in Hosea…” Well, what did He say in Hosea? He didn’t say that He was going to call non-Israelites His people or the children of the living God. HE SAID THAT about the ten tribes whom were about to be divorced.

]]> Comment on The Antichrist Fraud by Ted R. Weilandhttp://americanvision.org/1713/antichrist-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-304751 Ted R. Weiland Wed, 23 May 2012 13:33:43 +0000 http://americanvision.org/2004/post/antichrist-fraud/#comment-304751 Thanks Gary! This was excellent! It's going in my antichrist file. Thanks Gary! This was excellent! It’s going in my antichrist file.

]]> Comment on Math Education: The Components by Rebahttp://americanvision.org/5243/math-education-the-components/comment-page-1/#comment-304740 Reba Wed, 23 May 2012 12:43:28 +0000 http://americanvision.org/?p=5243#comment-304740 I have enjoyed reading several of your articles on this website. I am especially interested in what math curriculum you would recommend homeschoolers to use for the elementary years. We have been using Saxon but recently have been considering switching to Singapore or something else but are not sure what to use. Thank you for your time! I have enjoyed reading several of your articles on this website. I am especially interested in what math curriculum you would recommend homeschoolers to use for the elementary years. We have been using Saxon but recently have been considering switching to Singapore or something else but are not sure what to use. Thank you for your time!

]]> Comment on All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26 by David Leehttp://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-on-romans/comment-page-1/#comment-304717 David Lee Wed, 23 May 2012 11:26:20 +0000 http://americanvision.org/2004/post/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-on-romans/#comment-304717 Who is Israel? Paul answers that in Galatians chapter 3. Dispensationalist are the true Replacement Theology proponents. They take their view of Revelations and then go back and reinterpret O.T. and N.T. Scripture to fit their view starting with Gen. 12:3. Who is Israel? Paul answers that in Galatians chapter 3. Dispensationalist are the true Replacement Theology proponents. They take their view of Revelations and then go back and reinterpret O.T. and N.T. Scripture to fit their view starting with Gen. 12:3.

]]>