Search This Blog

Friday, January 17, 2020

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's Videos against Hope Resurrected #6

This will be a short blog post in response to Don Preston's latest video.

I truly believe this whole 19 minute, waste of time, video is Preston bullsnotting and advertising his books. 

For about 4 minutes or more, Preston tries to make it out that my book is littered with grammar issues and is just terrible to read. I have found some errors for sure in my grammar and some misspellings every so often as I've continued to proofread my book - there certainly are some. However, Preston's claims are just mostly an attempt to make people not read this book and attempt to make it out that I am some incompetent imbecile. My only response really for that is that I will be revising the book at some point and any errors that are found in the book I will be fixing obviously. The whole book is not littered in every single sentence and page with errors in spelling and grammar as Preston claims though. 

To Preston: Eat a donut kumquat... 

He has been for two videos straight stuck on page 70 and I was actually in shock he managed to move on to other pages of my seventh chapter. This probably shouldn't have been such a shocker considering Don's obsessive, idolatrous infatuation with 70 AD but I digress. 

He makes an absurd claim that I should have cited some academics in the paragraph of page 70 where I say that sometimes time statements in the bible do mean a longer period of time when apocalyptic language and prophecy are concerned. Truth of the matter is, I do not have to cite an academic for what was clearly a paragraph serving as the primer of Ken Palmer's article and the rest of the 7th chapter of my book. It's hilariously sad that Preston keeps doing these things... yet when he is asked by William Vincent, Sam Frost, or myself about his claims about having "ancient sources" that prove his claims for what constitutes his position on what is and is not the "Hebraic mindset". So far, he can't seem to give us anything of substance and can't even give us quotations. 

He wildly takes me out of context for a past conversation we had where I said that the way Full Preterists interpret time statements would not only falsify my book if true, but would also falsify the New Testament and make the NT writers nothing more than a failed doomsday cult that never saw fruition of what they desired: the 2nd Coming (this is because Christ promised to really physically come back and promises a biological resurrection - this clearly did not take place in 70 AD). 

I found it pretty hilarious that he has gone through 3 videos now and it took the 3rd try for him to finally get past page 70. In the process he makes a charge at Ken Palmer like Ken is some evil scumbag which I found absurdist on all levels, even for Preston, and overall dumb. It took him this long to do that and then Don claims that for brevity's sake, he won't go through every verse mentioned in the 7th chapter. 

So what does Don focus on? Well after he's done blowing smoke out of his ears most of this video, he starts to try and make the point of his primer in his video that "Lance Conley claims that prophetic time statements don't mean anything, but then, he turns around and cites Matthew 3 - a prophetic passage - and admits that it was fulfilled in AD 70! Thus, prophetic time statements did mean imminently, just as the passage indicates - and Conley has falsified his own claims!"

Well first off, this chapter is to provide the point that the Greek word mello means certainty and does not always mean something is imminent, especially with apocalyptic and prophetic language. I have to point this out as well that with eschatology, unless you're a full preterist, there is the "already, not yet" principle taking place in the Scriptures. Another thing, neither Palmer or myself would deny that the word mello can mean imminence. It most certainly can in some cases in the proper context. It does sometimes in the Scriptures mean imminence. It does not though in all cases, especially when it comes to apocalyptic language and when it comes to prophetic words being spoken. Preston can deny this all he bloody heck pleases but it is vain and meaningless ramblings of a mad pseudo-scholar at the end of the day who will take uninspired, often atheist, liberal-minded, bible-critic scholars over the Word of God. 

He clearly tries to make "at hand" spoken by John the Baptist about AD70 here with page 73 of my book where we clearly talk about the already, not yet principle being in view with this... 

In my book, I write that Matt 3:7; Luke 3:7 both appear thematically to be describing an outcome that is on the temporal horizon, as in the wrath of God, which would result in the extermination of the Aaronic priesthood, and national theocracy. John the Baptist indeed describes that the kingdom is at hand in Matt 3:2 and Matt 3:10 is a certain warning that is a result of their disobedience and countenance, according to John, the spirit crying out in the wilderness, in failure to heed, even the upcoming Messiah, of that resulting outcome for their sins Luke 11:5.

Preston makes it out that I don't think AD70 was anything important but in fact in the book, and as I have said repeatedly, the Scriptures and the Early Church did see some significance to the Destruction of Jerusalem. They did not see it as the 2nd Coming nor the Resurrection of the dead, but did see it to have been a day of judgment on the Jews for rejecting Christ. That is a fact.

As for his next one he quotes in my book, he goes to Matt 12:32 where I write that Matt 12:32 compares two different worlds, this and the world to come/μέλλω. It is often understood that this world to come, although already established in some sense, has not come to fruition in the fullest sense. This is sometimes attributed to the “already but not yet” paradigm charge that many within the preterism tend to lay on the heads of the historic church. They claim “If it isn’t here, then it isn’t here, but if it is, then it is, and the other one is gone”. This in fact is indeed an error on their part, based on the simple fact that when Christ came, the world to come had been established in his Ministry and Passion, resulting in His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, and not in the year 70 A.D. He was exalted at the right hand of the father in all the glory of His angels and given the scepter to now judge humanity according to Matt 12:28; 26:64. cf. Dan 7:10, 14. The law, for believers, was thus nullified and fulfilled in Christ, and from that point forward, no longer was the law, or the Jewish theocracy the standard set for the world, or oikoumené, to be judged.

It is clear that we are discussing full preterism in context, why it is in error about mello, and we also discuss the already not yet principle as well to make sure the reader know this. Preston does a lot of smoke in this video. I did post his video for context but if you want to do yourself a favor and not waste 19 minutes of your life, do so. 

Nothing he says in this video of his actually refutes my book. Back to reading more books by actual scholars and making better use of my time.

Stay tuned for the next article where we will be tackling Preston's silly videos about Isaiah 24. 


  1. A virtually incherent "response."

    He admits that mello can and does indicate imminence in some contexts.

    I pointed out in my video that Palmer- and I did not question Palmer's character in the slightest-- admits that Matthew 3 uses mello and "at hand" of the AD 70 destruction. Game over! That means that time prophetic time statements of imminence mean soon-- Slam dunk, end of story.

    He says: //He clearly tries to make "at hand" spoken by John the Baptist about AD70 here with page 73 of my book where we clearly talk about the already, not yet principle being in view with this...//

    No, Palmer is the one that admitted that at hand in Matthew 3 was speaking of the imminent judgment (which was the Day of the Lord) in AD 70.

    All Conley did is offer a disjointed, confusing, and confused bunch of words that do not answer the points I made.

  2. Notice this, folks-- if anyone actually reads your blog-- Conley says of "the age to come"

    //It is often understood that this world to come, although already established in some sense, has not come to fruition in the fullest sense. This is sometimes attributed to the “already but not yet” paradigm charge that many within the preterism tend to lay on the heads of the historic church.//

    Thanks Mr. Conley, cause that means that when Jesus in Matthew 12 spoke of "the age about to come" that it truly did come-- even in "some sense" very soon, and thus, once again, mello-- used eschatologically, truly meant soon!

  3. Poor Don can't read well. Whatever Mr. blah blah blah der der der

  4. Fact is mello does not always mean imminent or in other words, right now... often, especially when it is used eschatologically, it is used to show that this event prophesied is certain to happen or "will" happen. Preston can deny this and flail like a madman all he wants and desires but the truth will remain the same and facts will not change.


Gospel of John - Chapters 16-21 Notes

Chapter 16 16:1-4 [Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand and agree with one another saying the same thing] The Church will be persecuted. ...