Search This Blog

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's videos against Hope Resurrected #8

In his video "Review and Refutation of Lance Conley's Book-Hope Resurrected #8 Time #5" (link above), Preston basically repeats the same things he did in the 7th video so this response will be shorter than others.

Essentially, this whole video is an 18+ minute rant about the Greek word "mello" and about how Preston thinks I am an incompetent loser because there are some grammar mistakes that I and others did not catch in the proofreads of my book. I have basically said that there are mistakes in this book that I have found even a month into the time I hit publish on Amazon and there will be an edit to take place when I am able. I'm hoping to hire a professional proofreader as well at some point with it in order to improve it.

Some points though that need to be addressed: I have never said Mello always means certainty. I have also said repeatedly that prophecy has many contexts that go with it which means that there are times that time texts do not mean imminence whatsoever when mello is used. That said, there are times when mello does not mean certainty and means something imminent. In other words, mello can sometimes mean something is imminent but there are also many times it is something far off but certain to take place. It will always mean certainty since it is a true event to occur that is prophesied but sometimes it is most definitely imminent, though not always is that the case.

Next point: I gave a lexicon before. Thayers has this information online and it is easy to find with a google search. If you're too lazy to do a google search, here is a link online that shows quite clearly that mello can mean imminence and can mean certainty. Thayer and Smith seem to agree here with what I've said are possible for the word mello (depends on the context).

"The reason translators of English do not say “about” with mello and use will or shall is because English is more exacting with the language and so someone reading it as “about to happen” could think that this is fixing to happen pretty quickly within a few days perhaps time. Frost writes on this topic: “As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near (enggus) to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was (mello) to appear immediately” (Luke 19.11). Here is another term, mello, [which is] often abused... This text in Luke states that the expectation of many was that when Jesus was “near” Jerusalem, the Kingdom would “immediately” (“about to” – mello) appear. It didn’t. They were wrong. It is certainly interesting that Luke uses enggus in this text, almost as if saying, “see, don’t confuse that with this.” Good job, Luke! It’s not that mello does not ever have this meaning, or that enggus or enngizo does not have this meaning, sometimes. It’s that in each and every instance we must interpret the passages in context. A proof text without a context is no text. Linguistics 101. There are literally dozens of examples that can be shown. If Jesus was saying the Kingdom was at hand, and he meant 70 AD, then he was 35 years off. If he meant “at hand” in terms of proximity (the verb used with the perfect tense), the problem is at once removed. It is not a time text. Jesus could not have been saying he is “about to” (mello) come in 70 AD (Matthew 16.27 – For the Son of Man is going to come (mello) with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done), only to have that contradicted in Luke for those who thought the Kingdom was about to come when he entered Jerusalem. Either Jesus in Matthew 16.27 is saying that he was about to come in his Father’s Kingdom in heaven – which would make sense if applied to his ascension – or he was 35 years off and mello means nothing at all). Or, it could mean, as translators have taken it, that mello here (“going to”) simply stresses the certainty of an action in the future – not its time – which is entirely legitimate, too). If there were things to happen before the 70 AD event happened so that they could “see” these things, and then think, “it is near”, then this again begs the question of why they used “it is near” all they way back in the thirties, forties and fifties of the NT writings.  They could not say, “it is near” until they saw these things first. In fact, Jesus expressly says this: “And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand (enggus)!’ Do not go after them” (Luke 21.8)! In using the Synoptics of the Gospel (Kurt Aland) and noting the parallel statements here of Luke with Matthew and Mark, Luke is the only one that mentions this statement, “the time is at hand, do not go after them.” Again, this is because Luke is explaining to his readers the difference between time and proximity. Don’t confuse them! If Jesus was saying “go, preach, the time is at hand” and saying here, “do not go after those who are saying, the time is at hand,” then we have a massive contradiction here (which many critics of the Bible have noted, falsely – for even their bias to prove the Bible wrong fails to consider the nuances of this term). If, however, in the same vein some false teachers were saying, “the Christ’s Appearance is over here. He is here! The Time of Messiah’s Coming is now! He is now coming to restore all things” – if that was being said in terms of time, don’t listen to this. Jesus is not coming in any form of any appearance, nor he is coming in any form of any shape where he could be pointed at and said, “there he is!” The judgement of Jerusalem was indeed a judgment of the son of man – who judges from heaven where he is at the right hand of God, the one who comes on the clouds of heaven before the Holy Father who is in heaven. Thus, the son of man is indeed near in terms of proximity (the Spirit reveals Him, and the Spirit is in union with the Son, who is in union with the man, the son of man in heaven), but Luke seems to be going out of way to say the fall of Jerusalem is not when the son of man will appear – don’t confuse them.[1]

Gentry writes that syntactically when mello appears in the future infinitive (as in Acts 24:15) it indicates certainty. We find samples of this in Josephus, classical Greek, and patristic usage. In the Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon (p. 500) we read that when mello is used with a future infinitive it ‘denotes certainty that an event will occur in the future.’ That, and nothing more. This is why all the standard translations of the Acts 24:15 do not translate mello as expressing nearness, but simply as a future fact (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, etc.). The NASB (cited above) has an excellent rendering: ‘having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Paul’s argument in Acts 24 supports this idiomatic usage: he is on trial for his life, having been brought to court by Jews. His clever maneuver is to divide his opponents against themselves: the Pharisees believe in a resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees do not (Acts 23:6-7). Thus, Paul argues for the certainty of the resurrection (by use of this idiomatic expression) and concludes: ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today” (Acts 24:21). He is not on trial for declaring the resurrection near, but for declaring it at all.’ Acts 24:25 is time indicative, in that the judgement Paul awaited from Felix’.[2]

As I've said before, Don has to prove that Christianity is not a failed doomsday cult at the end of the day if he wants to take his full preterist take on the time texts in the way that he does. He has to prove that Paul's resurrection of the dead actually took place and the dead actually rose from the literal graves to eternal life by AD70 (and he doesn't since he spiritualizes 1 Cor 15 and eisegetes it in dishonest fashion as well as other texts to make what Paul talks about to be a non-literal, metaphorical, spiritual only resurrection - false on all accounts). He also has to prove that Jesus really physically returned in 70 AD (and he doesn't do this either when he makes up his unbiblical idea that Jesus stripped off His humanity at His ascension and became a spirit Jesus without a flesh suit - it is neo-Docetism and wrong. You will not find it anywhere in the bible as it is a fabrication Don concocted, plain and simple). 

Now... as for Matthew 16:27-28, Don is going to always try and pass this off as being about AD 70. If that were the case there are many problems that Don must honestly deal with and they can't be solved by making up bad interpretations based on eisegesis and his own fabrications he's created. There are countless scholars who say that Matthew 16:27-28 are transitory verses about the Transfiguration that is about to take place. They will almost always note as well that it, being transitory, involves Christ’s going to the Cross and His future Resurrection and His Ascension, when He would take back the dominion that Adam lost and handed over to Satan, sin, and death (Google Christus Victor for more information). I've also noted that the “some” could very well be Christ referring to Judas who would not live to see His Resurrection nor His Ascension when He would go back to the Kingdom as he would commit suicide for his betrayal against Christ. There is nothing wrong with what I put in my book regarding that. "Some" can be about someone or something in particular when around a group of people. This is not that difficult to comprehend and I believe this will suffice as a response. 

[1] Sam Frost. Vigalate Et Orate. 2018.
[2] Conley. Hope Resurrected. 2018. 453-454. 


  1. You have consistently said that time indicators of imminence mean imminent when not speaking of eschatology, but, when speaking of eschatology they do not mean imminent. That is an arbitrary and false claim-- and you have given no proof of the claim.

    I have never called you names. I have correctly pointed out the falsity of your claims and your abuse of text, linguistics and context, exegesis and hermeneutic.

    Kinda funny that you claim I spent my time examining mello. Well, I spoke on it, because I was reviewing and refuting your claims about it! If I didn't mention it, you would cry See, Preston ignored my comments on mello!"

    I spent most of my time on Matthew 16:27-28 and I did NOT focus on mello in that discussion, so your claim is disingenuous and false. I demonstrated that the Transfiguration, Christ's ascension could not be the fulfillment of the text-- and they can't. Matthew 16:27-28-- as I stated, is about the judgment, the rewarding of the saints, the kingdom. That was not the cross, or the ascension" or the Transfiguration-- in spite of what you say. Jesus did not say "one of you will die" (i.e. Judas). As I noted, that turns the text on its head in typical Conley fashion.

  2. Absolutely and utterly false. I have always maintained that mello can mean imminence and certainty. You are lying yet again. Can't tell the truth to save his life. It's going to be a tragedy for you at the Judgment.


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. ...