For the liberal position on the last third of Daniel 11, serious difficulties crop up when one tries to make verses 36-45 fit the career of Antiochus IV. Continue reading “John Evans: The Challenge of Daniel 11:36-45 (2003)”
my understanding of Biblical prophecy is therefore a ‘Partial-preterist/ Historicist/ Idealist/ Postmillennial/ A-millennial’ viewpoint! To narrow it down, it’s primarily a Partial-preterist/Postmillennial view. BUT please don’t let that put you off reading my articles. Continue reading “Gerry Watts: Introduction to Prophetic Studies (2011)”
If therefore we simply ascertain from the preceding verses (as can be done with little trouble and with certainty) who are the “all Israel” of God’s purpose, and how they were to “be saved,” we shall also ascertain in the process when they were to be saved. Continue reading “Philip Mauro: So All Israel Shall Be Saved (1927)”
It is greatly to be regretted that those who, in our day, give themselves to the study and exposition of prophecy, seem not to be aware of the immense significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 Continue reading “Mauro’s Conversion from Dispensationalism to Preterism (1919-1921)”
This is far more acceptable in “explaining” what appears to some as a unsteady stream of Church History. There is a steady stream. It didn’t start in AD 70. It started with the arrival of Messiah; with his pouring out the Spirit. Continue reading “Sam Frost: Scholar, Philip Mauro (2012)”
Mauro’s introduction is rather long, but it is well done simply because it sets the tone. It becomes clear immediately that he is going to pull no punches at all with respect to his view of Dispensationalism, and how he believe it stacks up with respect to Scripture. It is also in the introduction that I notice what I believe to be Mauro’s first real mistake. Continue reading “Review of Philip Mauro’s “The Gospel of the Kingdom” (2010)”
To one who reads it with ever so little spiritual intelligence, there comes a perception of the fact that this Book understands and knows all about him.
repudiates the “parenthesis theory” that has been perpetuated even in our own day by modern Dispensational writers on prophecy, and lays the foundation of what the biblical teaching concerning the destiny of the nation of Israel.
The fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a “Bible” of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God.
Why was such an enormous number of changes made? On what authority? Briefly, do they give us a better Version, that is, one that brings us nearer to the original autographs of the inspired Writings?
The erroneous doctrine of the teachers of Israel was based upon an unspiritual interpretation of their own Scriptures; for “they know not the voices of their prophets which were read every sabbath day.”
the 483-year period of Daniel 9:25, reaching “unto the Messiah, the Prince,” ended at the baptism of our Lord, in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, when He was thirty years of age.
It may be of interest to the reader to learn that the writing of this book was begun and finished on the memorable voyage of the Steamship Carpathia which was interrupted by the rescue of the survivors of the Titanic, and by the return with them to the port of New York.