tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post4545380766731932574..comments2023-09-06T14:33:47.451-07:00Comments on Hope Resurrected: Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's Videos Against Hope Resurrected #9Lazarus Conleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16666450274296456034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-42878652680596918912020-03-05T18:13:06.828-08:002020-03-05T18:13:06.828-08:00Preston acting a fool as always. Preston acting a fool as always. Lazarus Conleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666450274296456034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-74171492230391793092020-02-10T04:12:13.269-08:002020-02-10T04:12:13.269-08:00And did you notice his little tirade about my rema...And did you notice his little tirade about my remarks about a ten year old could write better? LOL! So, here is a guy who cannot write a paragraph without using hateful, caustic, abusive language, but when I use hyperbole to drive home the point of how bad his book is I am the one that is hateful, angry, etc.! Mr. Conley-- "THOU ART THE MAN!"<br /><br />Such hypocrisy!Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-70982785327565205072020-02-10T04:09:31.227-08:002020-02-10T04:09:31.227-08:00Conley says: //I want to note there are MANY schol...Conley says: //I want to note there are MANY scholars who do say that Matthew 16 is about the Transfiguration.//<br /><br />Indeed there are, and I have never said otherwise. But, that violates the context, no matter how many say so.<br />The Transfiguration was only six days after Jesus said "there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until the see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.<br />Conley would have us believe that out of the large multitude present and who heard that promise, only a small number-- only "some" lived for six more days! That is why the Transfiguration was not the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27. It was the vision of the fulfillment, but Jesus did not say "Some standing here will not taste death until they see a vision of the Son of Man coming."<br />That violates, distorts and perverts the text and context, but Mr. Conley has no problem doing that.Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-65245141344963361182020-02-10T04:05:57.949-08:002020-02-10T04:05:57.949-08:00What is shameful is that men like Conley claim to ...What is shameful is that men like Conley claim to be Christians, and yet, when caught in blatant falsehoods and lies, when confronted over their crass and ungodly language, do not have the humility of heart to repent and apologize. That is what is shameful. Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-28212043017035066532020-02-10T04:03:49.289-08:002020-02-10T04:03:49.289-08:00More on Conley's claims about Matthew Henry: /...More on Conley's claims about Matthew Henry: //Nowhere does this ever present anything about Matthew 16 being about the 2nd Coming in AD70. Don has been caught red handed lying and misrepresenting his opposition yet again. This is all extremely shameful behavior.//<br /><br />If you have Conley's book, let me urge you to go to pages 76 and 77. There you will find that Mr. Conley cites Matthew Henry who applied Matthew 16:27 to the end of time, and verse 28 to his generation. In my video, I proved beyond doubt that this an untenable claim. You cannot divorce v. 27 from v. 28-- the Greek grammar forbids it. Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-21642364025999556892020-02-10T03:59:19.002-08:002020-02-10T03:59:19.002-08:00Mr. Conley says he left Matthew 16:27 open ended. ...Mr. Conley says he left Matthew 16:27 open ended. Another blatant falsehood. Here is what you need to know.<br />On FB he flat out denied that v. 27 predicted the second coming, even offering to debate it!<br />Ooopps!<br />He evidently forgot that he had written in his book that v. 27 is the second coming!<br /><br />That is called being self contradictory. It is not "open ended" it is a self contradiction. <br /><br />Oh, then he turned around and said v. 27 is probably the Transfiguration! Well, the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming-- 2 Peter 1:17f<br />But, Matthew 27 pointed to the Transfiguration-- says Conley-- but who knows if that is what he actually believes, cause, remember, he leaves it open ended.<br />But, if v. 27 pointed to the Transfiguration and the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming, then once again, Mr. Conley is utterly destroyed, caught in his own self contradictions.<br />Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-51551398425560662782020-02-10T03:53:47.720-08:002020-02-10T03:53:47.720-08:00More of Conley's false hoods. He says //Anothe...More of Conley's false hoods. He says //Another thing I need to bring up. Preston straight up lies and misrepresents what I wrote when I put Matthew Henry's quote here in this chapter. Nowhere does Matthew Henry claim that the 2nd Coming happened in AD70.//<br /><br />No, Mr. Conley, I never said that Henry applied Matthew 16:27 to AD 70. Typical falsehood. So typical of you. He applied verse 27 (NOT VERSE 28) to the second coming, but, he applied verse 28 to the first century-- and on page 77 of your book you quote him to that yourself! <br />Busted again. Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-6270490120044246882020-02-10T03:48:49.201-08:002020-02-10T03:48:49.201-08:00Edit: Conley says I take him out of context. But w...Edit: Conley says I take him out of context. But watch: He says mello can mean imminent in non eschatological texts, but it does NOT mean imminent in non-eschatological texts. That is straight from his book. When I point that out, he says I am misrepresenting him. Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535736294867991865.post-68513225009176701382020-02-10T03:46:49.061-08:002020-02-10T03:46:49.061-08:00Conley says I take him out of context. But watch: ...Conley says I take him out of context. But watch: He says mello can mean imminent in non eschatological texts, but it does mean imminent in non-eschatological texts. When I point that out, he says I am misrepresenting him. But, here are his own words taken directly from above:<br /><br />//When it (mello-DKP) is used eschatologically, mello can be used for imminence as well and sometimes very well is, but it, if a true prophetic word, will always mean certainty. You can find this in Thayer's Lexicon and other places. Preston's claim that lexicons don't have this are false on every level and he should be ashamed of himself for lying to his audience.????<br /><br />Thank you Mr. Conley for totally abandoning your argument! You say in your book that mello cannot mean imminent when used in eschatological texts, but NOW you admit that mello can indeed mean imminent in eschatological texts, but that it includes certain. Well, guess what? That is MY argument! Amen and hallelujah, Mr. Conley has surrendered his argument!<br /><br />And BTW, I never said that that Thayer says differently. Just another of your false claims. Don K. Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611748131175204549noreply@blogger.com