It is not good to start off a debate without the honor of common respect and decency. I would encourage Roy to stay with proving his proposition rather than starting off with false accusation and inflammatory rhetoric. He talked about how "shocked" he was "at the number of times" (I could find only a very few of these in my first negative) "Terry uses the hermeneutic of, "I think..." "if," "it may be," "it can mean," etc., "which are not exegetical responses." Neither is assertion an exegesis, nor false accusation, but Roy did a lot of that anyway.

When Roy started off his FIRST affirmative, he claimed that we need to look for "Hebrew idioms, metaphors and hyperbole" if we want to master "Hebrew thought". That requires thinking of those possibilities and having hermeneutical honesty enough to say "I think" or "it may be" when trying to harmonize one verse with another that seems on the surface to contradict another verse. Some verses may have figures of speech, even " hyperbole" as Roy mentioned, and such must be thought of in terms of possibility. When one "reasons" from scriptures he "thinks" and he tries to harmonize by looking at possibilities. To pretend to be "shocked" at "how much" I pointed to other possible explanations of a text, when I said such only a very few times, not any "shocking" amount, is not a mark of honesty and objectivity.

Roy said I " just denied the Holy Spirit's (HS) quotation and application of His own words ". But I did not deny the quotation or application. I pointed out that in Hosea 11:1 the Holy Spirit was talking directly about one thing (Israel called out of Egypt) and then applied it to a similar event, calling Jesus out of Egypt. Any person of intellectual honesty can see that the Hosea 11:1 text is not DIRECTLY about Jesus, but indirectly about Jesus. Directly about Israel, indirectly about Jesus. Homer Hailey, commenting on Hosea 11:1 said, "In its context the passage seems to have NO DIRECT reference to the Messiah (see Matt.2:15)." (The Minor Prophets, p.172). If Hosea 11:1 is directly about Jesus, then " the Assyrian will be Jesus' king" (v.5) because Jesus "refused to repent." Now I affirmed the Holy Spirit's quotation of this by showing an INDIRECT comparison. The obvious idea of "fulfilling" something is in doingthe same thing. We "fulfill" the law by doing the same thing the law called for righteous people to do in the past (Rom.13:8-10). We know what it means, but Roy shows that he does not know what it means, and he thinks that the Holy Spirit can't communicate in "various ways" (Heb.1:1) both with direct prophecies and indirect ones.

Redefining?

Roy said I just "redefined" the term " fulfill." How did I "redefine" it? Typology is indirect projection or prophecy of Jesus. When we say that Jesus "fulfills" the animal sacrifices that Israel performed, are we "redefining" the word fulfill when we point out direct versus indirect prophecy matters? Roy should know better! He rants that " Terry invents this multiple-fulfillment hermeneutic " and " contradicts the HS's quotation, interpretation, and application ." A bit dishonest! Hosea 11:1f is a direct prophecy (not a prediction) of Israel's unfaithfulness, though they were "called out of Egypt" and would become Assyria's servants because "they refused to repent," and Roy insists that this is a DIRECT prophecy of Jesus, not a prophecy that typifies Jesus in only one similarity. Let the honest reader decide if some prophecies have a direct and indirect application and fulfillment.

Roy's Premise

Roy argues that all Paul ever taught was based SOLEY upon the information of the Old Testament. I agreed that Paul's teaching AGREED with the OT but was not based ONLY or SOLEY upon the Old Testament. It blows a hole in Roy's premise to point out that Paul's hermeneutic included things "promised before time began" (Titus 1:2). There are no written, preserved records, of what promises God made BEFORE time began, but we know that "eternal life" was promised and it was promised "before time began". Notice that Paul used the correct "hermeneutic" of the Holy Spirit. Do we have record in the OT of what was "promised before time began?" Does the OT record what was said by God "before time began?" Genesis 1 is where time began and there is no record of any promise that God made before Genesis 1. So, a promise was made, yet not recorded in the OT which came over a thousand years after "time began." Therefore, it is not true that Paul ONLY spoke what was affirmed in the LOM (Law of Moses). He also spoke of things God promised without recording it in the OT. The NT not only agrees with the limited light of the OT, but it also brings to light promises NOT recorded in the OT. We have MORE information about "eschatology" than was made available in the OT alone. So, Roy's premise that Paul SOLELY spoke the things found in the Law of Moses may have been true on SOME occasions, but not always.

We know that promise of eternal life was made before time began, before the OT came along, and we know about this promise made only because the Spirit now told us about it through Paul in the NT. Reconstructing the Text?

Roy claims that when I insert "of the universe" into 2 Peter 3:7-13 that I am " reconstructing the text". This is special pleading. The texts says,"the heavens and the earth". Which part of the universe is NOT included in that phrase? What Roy does is "reconstruct the text" to mean something else. Just wait on his explanation! His argument is as ridiculous as those who demand that we not use the word "trinity" because it is not a Bible word and using it "reconstructs the text."

He claimed I tried to "redefine his proposition", but he did not explain how or where I did this. Another false claim.

He falsely claimed that I "reconstructed his third question" by " inserting my own passage into it." I didn't even quote his question, much less "reconstruct" it. I merely answered it, and he didn't like the answer.

He says he never mentioned "the time of the end." I didn't say he did. But if ever there was a "prolepsis," this was a good time to anticipate an argument before it is used. I simply volunteered some points for free. He says he "demonstrated irrefutably" that " there is no such thing as the EOT (end of time) in the OT. " Well, he didn't prove such. He only ASSERTED it with a few misused verses and by ignoring others. The phrase "end of time" doesn't have to be mentioned any more than "trinity" has to be mentioned. Roy talked about "idioms, metaphors, and hyperbole", then he should add to his list "Ellipsis" where words like universe do not have to be spoken. "Heavens and the earth" are quite the universe.

The Seen Things Are Temporal

2Cor.4:18 , "For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." Tell us, Roy, is the material universe visible? Is it eternal?

Roy argues that the seen universe is eternal. His whole line of argument hinges on whether the seen is temporal or eternal. Paul's "hermeneutic" says the seen things are temporal. Who's "hermeneutic" is correct? Roy's? or Paul's? Paul could say this even knowing the verses Roy built his case upon. Such verses as Jer.31:35f and 33:19-22; Psalm 89 (Incidentally, Roy cashed in on my typing error of putting 82 for 89. Big deal!); Isa.9:6f (which he ignored in his second affirmative); Psalm 102:15-20 (which all he could say is that I obfuscated and again "reconstructed" his argument. I didn't!); Isa.61:1-3 (grouping this with the former and passing over my observations). Now, Paul knew ALL of these verses, some of which contain what Roy calls "hyperbole". Look up the meaning of the word you used, Roy. It might just explain some of the verses you think refute Paul's inspired words (greater light words) that "that which is seen is temporary." Because Roy has a different viewpoint and hermeneutic than Paul, he believes the visible is eternal and that Paul and Peter " reconstructed" God's real OT words. (2 Cor.4:18 and 2 Peter 3:7-12).

He wanted you to forget those verses. These other verses show that the visible universe is temporal, not eternal.

Psalms 102:25-26

25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: - What "hermeneutic" suppresses and ignores these verses? Might it be Roy's "hermeneutic of Ignoring verses" that he combines with his "hermeneutic of assertion?"

Isaiah 51:6

"Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment , and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." Why didn't Roy's hermeneutic include this?

In Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Jesus declared:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Did Roy tell you what "hermeneutic" allowed him to ignore these clear statements? No!

Hebrews 1:10-11

10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment".

Did you notice that the NT is quoting the OT here and the clear contrast is that Jesus is eternal and the visible earth and universe is temporal? The visible earth and heavens, yes, the universe, is waxing old as a garment. It "is passing" (1 John 2:17) because it is doing the same thing as a garment. It is wearing out.

2 Peter 3:10-12

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved , what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"

The very elements, the substance of the world, will be destroyed. It is already as a garment in deterioration. Roy tried to explain this away on the basis of his mere ASSERTION that the LOM did not speak of the EOT. Well, his assertion was false, and therefore all his efforts were based on the false premise of his foundational assertion.

Hebrews 1:10-12 - The world will wear out and be discarded. This is what the NT says about the end of the earth based upon what the OT said, and when the world passes away, that will be the EOT. There is no escaping this truth hermeneutic used by Peter, Paul, and John. Roy does not believe their "hermeneutic." Roys keeps insultingly saying that Terry "resorts to 'I think", etc. If only Roy would think instead of ASSERT with no thought!

Roy asserts, " Without an EOT, there cannot be a future-to-us second coming ." This is his foundational argument and we have shown it to be completely FALSE. The visible earth and sun are "temporary" (2 Cor.4:18). If it is temporary, there is an end of time on earth. Roy's proposition is proven false. His "foundation" argument is proven false.

The Law of Moses was taken away via the cross (Eph.2:15; Col.2:13-16; Rom.7). Roy's argument on this is with Paul. Roy argues that the Law of Moses can't end if there is some promise that is still not fulfilled. Well, then it couldn't end in AD 70 either in that case. Rome did not fall in AD 70 (Dan.2:44,45), the Aaronic priesthood would have to continue and not even end at AD 70 (Ex.29:9). To "fulfill" the covenant that the Aaronic priesthood would be commanded "forever," then it could not be changed even in AD 70, and thus Roy will have to argue that the entire system of the Aaronic priesthood must still be in place. If not, why not?

It was supposed to end before the EOT because it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Gal.3:24,25. The time for being under the Law was finished. We are "no longer" under the Law, and this was said long before AD 70.

I have not "by default" or otherwise "corroborated" Roy's assertion (not fact) that the EOT is nowhere predicted in the LOM. I gave clear verses stating the world is passing away, and when we are changed to immortality, time will end. So, what did Roy do? He started arguing that the world was passing away in the present tense and pointed to it being the "last hour", and used these points to assert that John was only talking about certain someone's world that was in process of passing away in the first century. No! It was indeed the last hour of Judaism, but Judaism is not the world with all its lusts (1 John 2:15-17). The world has been decaying ever since the ground was cursed in Genesis 3. "Is passing" is what it is doing "like a garment" (Heb.1:11). So, I was not "mishandling present tense language". Roy is trying desperately to get you to think that John was not talking about the world in general, but just the Jew's world that would pass in AD 70. Notice the world AND "the lust of it" IS PASSING AWAY. Did the lust of Judaism pass away in AD 70? Did the Jews who survived AD 70 stop lusting for the world of Judaism to return? No! John is agreeing with Paul that the world and the lust of it is something passing because what you see, "all that is in the world," is temporary (2 Cor.4:18).

Forever

"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" offers definitions for "olam" that include "eternal" and "perpetual" but also includes the idea of "lasting." That is, some things seem to go on and on from a human standpoint but are really temporal compared to God.

Some things that are "perpetual" but still "temporary" (2 Cor.4:18) are such things as the sun and moon (Psalm 89:36,37), Samuel would be before the Lord at the tabernacle "forever" (1 Sam.1:22; cf 1 Sam.25:1), Solomon's temple (1 Chron.7:16); the everlasting ordinance of Passover meal (Ex.12:14,17), the law of Moses (Psalm 111:8); the Sabbath (Ex.31:16; Lev.24:8; 16:31); Priesthood of Aaron (Ex.29:9); a slave's ownership (Ex.21:6); the fire of Israel's sin-offering (Lev.6:12,13); circumcision (Gen.17:13), etc.

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is-until-it was superseded by the Melchizedek Priesthood in Christ (Hebrews 7:14-18). So, the sun and moon are far more permanent than the Aaronic priesthood, yet as "perpetual" as they are, they are still "temporal (2 Cor.4:18; Matt.24:35). So, the burden of harmony and proving that MOST of the visible things are also without end, is squarely on Roy's shoulders if he is to actually prove his proposition.

Correction

Two mistakes I made in my first negative: 1) I meant to type Psalm 89 instead of Psalm 82. Roy made a big deal out of that mistake. 2) I failed to put Jer.33:19-22 in this sentence: "Further, the text (referring to Jer.33:19-22 TWB) is not saying God can't end the covenant promise of day and night, but that MAN could not end it." Roy cashed in on this mistake. But, with fair thought he might could have assumed better of me that I was referring to the fact in 33:19-22 that God said to men, "if YOU can break my covenant with the day.." God made the covenant to provide for man as long as His plan lasts for the temporal. God made the covenant and only God can finalize and end it in proper time. Man could not end the covenant God made of day and night. So, none of Roy's verses actually disproved Jesus' words that "heaven and earth WILL pass away" or the hermeneutic of Paul that the things you see are temporal.

Summary

Roy built his entire case for his proposition that the SECOND COMING could only take place in the first century based upon a mere ASSERTION that " without an EOT, there cannot be a future-to-us second coming of the Lord. " He argued falsely that the Old Testament never said or implied it would end. It did! He appealed to a few verses that used "hyperbole" to emphasize that Israel would be around as surely as the sun and moon to contradict clearer verses that say heaven and earth would pass away but not the words of the Lord. He contradicted the fact that the hermeneutic of Paul made clear that "the things which are seen are temporal," all the while boasting that RE people recognize "hyperbole" and FE people don't. So, Roy has used TWO of his four affirmatives to prove his proposition, and all of his proofs were no proofs at all.

Let me encourage Roy to do his job since he in the affirmative.

Prove the proposition! You signed up to prove the proposition that the Second coming of Jesus could only happen in the first century. Asserting that there is no "end of time" and therefore no future coming of the Lord, is a very poor assertion, and you don't prove an assertion by ignoring clear verses that prove the opposite.