I can't. It's like he wants me to connect the dots, only that the dots are so wide apart that one does not know what dots connect to what.

And then he thinks my post is funny.

To some the idea that Jesus would physically come and establish a kingdom of righteousness is funny. (It won't be funny when he does). To others, the idea that King Jesus is allowing all sorts of havoc to occur in his kingdom, is humorous.

I will assume that you have taken a refresher on 1st grade math and you are approaching the Scripture with a sincere desire to know what it states (fat chance). Now I understand that I am stretching it a little bit, but I must operate under these presuppositions if I would give you an answer.

The simple answer is that it cannot be found in Daniel 7 for the same reason that it cannot be found in Genesis 1. It can be found in Daniel 9 if you care to read it. Unlike you, I try to stay away from proof-texting.

What Daniel 7 does teach, if you care to read, is that the Ancient of Days will rule in a physical kingdom in the future.

1. It will come after the 4th beast-- The government of the Antichrist. Fits well with Daniel 9 and the Antichrist of Revelation.

2. The Saints will take the kingdom. Just like revelations states that they will come in white horses.

3. All other dominions shall serve and obey him. Just like Revelation speaks of the millennium reign.

As usual, the Calvinist has all the questions but none of the answers.

I can give you a simple answer (again) if you are willing to take a simple math class and come to the Scripture with a sincere heart to understand what it states instead of your boundless hermeneutic where you can conveniently have it say anything to your fancy.

To top it all off, he depends on the same ALexandrian text which the Catholic and JW's use.

Go figure.

This can only be determined by accepting God simple declarative statements in Scripture.

I am not sure what Bible you have, but my Bible mentions the trinity. It also mentions original sin.

Nice try, but there is never an excuse for eisegesis. God's word is too sacred for theological biases.
_______________________________________

"Does the word "all" mean "all" in Rom. 3:23?"

One can tell when someone goes out way to left field to prove his theological bias when he has to ask questions like the one before. Once one has to question simple words like "all" then he has just stepped into the convenient world of boundless hermeneutics where words have no definite meaning and where the can interpret the Bible any way that he pleases.
_______________________________________

"Again, the whole crux of the matter comes to the forefront with JD and Yamil's failing to understand total depravity. They really aren't as bad as the Bible says they are."

Rock of ages, cleft for me
Let me hide myself in thee.
Let the waters, and the blood
From thy wounded side which flowed.
Be of sin the double cure
Save from wrath and make me pure.

"If death means as you say, a separation, the spirit is separated from life."

Close... but you can't have the cookie. The Spirit would be separated from God. Life is wherever the presence of God is.

That's not so hard to believe, especially when this is the way it is used in every figurative usage of it both within and without the Bible.
_______________________________________
"Alan, they are just trying to justify their moral goodness instead of seeing their own total depravity. Until they are humbled by the Holy Spirit, they will never come to the knowledge of the truth."

Thanks Asher