To the Corinthians, Paul taught the principle of all things being done unto edification (1Cor.14:26), i.e., to edify the church (v.12). I am stunned at Terry's First Negative in which he exemplifies the principle of doing all things unto obfuscation.

Peter wrote, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (1Pet.4:11). Again, I am shocked at the number of times Terry uses the hermeneutic of, "I think..." "if," "it may be," "it can mean," "that could mean," "not necessarily," which are not exegetical responses, but are solely for the purpose of bedazzling the readers. Terry's attitude toward his readers is very telling in that he expects all who follow along to be gullible enough to accept his fabrications and reconstructions of the scriptures which will be demonstrated. Tragically though, many of those who read Terry's speeches are only interested in something/anything offered as rebuttal to RE, regardless of how illogical, inconsistent, eisegetical, and skewed are his responses.

Terry begins by attempting to negate my statement that "the NT is the Holy Spirit's exegetical clarification of the OT," then builds his Straw Man (SM) deflection by saying, "it is not entirely true the New Testament only clarifies the old," (emphasis mine). Then, Terry offers a bald assertion with no proof, in his example of Mat.2:15/Hos.11:1, saying, "one would think that Matthew did not 'clarify' that passage, but instead seemingly took it out of context and applied it to Jesus. In context, it does not directly apply to Jesus." Terry is hoping you don't catch the fact that he just denied Holy Spirit's (HS) quotation and application of His own words, which demonstrates perfectly the very thing (my statement) he is trying to negate.

Terry exemplifies the Futurist hopscotch-hermeneutic of "TWO WAYS to use an OT scripture" hopping to fulfilling "scripture in a secondary way" which, "indirectly 'fulfills' those particular words," to, "scriptures may be 'fulfilled' in more than one way," (italics mine). I would ask Terry, why then can there not be three fulfillments, or four, or ten?? Referent to my opening remarks and right before your very eyes, Terry has just redefined the term "fulfill."

From Terry's example of Mat.2:15, "...fulfilled" is, "plēroō - From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply," (Strong's; bolds mine).

Since HS informs us that it was revealed to the prophets that their predictions were not for their time (1Pet.1:12), but were to be fulfilled in the first century generation, then the reader should realize that out of desperation Terry invents this multiple-fulfillment hermeneutic which contradicts HS's quotation, interpretation, and application of His own words; AND, he completely redefines biblical terminology. If something is "literally crammed full" how do you fill it fuller ? If it can be fulfilled more than once, then why not again and again?

Terry asserts that I am "stretching Paul's words a bit" in Acts 26:22ff. Really? Show us where Paul takes his eschatology from the NT!! When Paul went bound unto Rome upon his appeal to Caesar, He spake to the Jews there, where Luke records," when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening," (Acts 28:23). Clearly then, around the early AD 60's Paul is still taking his eschatology, i.e., the hope of Israel (v.20), solely from the OT! This is unavoidable and devastating to Terry's paradigm.

Terry says, "Paul is certainly claiming to be in agreement with the Law and the prophets that did indeed tell of Jesus' resurrection, and by implication that Jesus' would be the firstfruits of rising from the dead, but there was more light made available through the Spirit in Paul than was available in the OT and the light expounds on things kept in the dark by the old," (emphasis mine).

AMEN AND AMEN!! Thank you Terry as you just corroborated my statement perfectly! HS quotes His own words, shedding more light on His former predictions by expounding, i.e., interpreting His predictions through the apostles' message; however, more light is not DIFFERENT light as you are trying to establish! HS revealed the mystery to the apostles (1Cor.2:9-13/Eph.3:1-5) which had been kept hidden in ages past, but this was not a different mystery than predicted in the OT!

Terry goes on to say, " The NT does not contradict the OT, agreeing with it, but gives deeper insight and greater light, sometimes giving light where the old gave no knowledge," (emphasis mine).

AMEN AND AMEN!! Thank you Terry again for verifying my statement, and, confuting any attempt you make to add your opinions and presuppositions to NT scripture so as to dodge my arguments from the OT as you have done throughout your Negative.

Let the reader take particular note of:

• Terry never breathed on the foundation of my argument, not even the first keystroke in response. He totally disregarded it, spending half of his Negative on my opening remarks. He even went on to say, "when earth and the elements of the universe melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:7-13)," thus reconstructing the text of Peter's epistle. The phrase "of the universe" is not in either of the verses which mention elements;

• Terry expended well over 400 words trying to manipulate and redefine my proposition for me, and went into the Affirmative as if he was arguing his Proposition;

• To my dismay, Terry even reconstructed my third question by inserting his own passage into it! Is this proper debate protocol? No! Please answer my question the way I worded it Terry !

• I never mentioned "the time of the end"! I demonstrated irrefutably that there's no such thing as the EOT in the OT, which argument Terry ignored and then asserted that I didn't prove my Proposition.

• I'll deal with Terry's egregious misrepresentation of "Steve's argument" and demonstrate his continued SM diversions, during his Affirmatives.

Terry, in typical futurist fashion, denies and ignores passages which specifically state that the celestial bodies endure forever, and eisegetes his opinions into passages saying, "So, the end of time is clearly IMPLIED in 'immortality' and the 'passing' away of the world (1 John 2:17)."

THIS IS AN ADMISSION THAT THE BIBLE NOWHERE SAYS THAT TIME WILL END!!

Terry fails to tell you that passeth away (KJV) is a present tense verb, not future tense!! The literal reading is, "the world is passing away"; and, John's next pen-stroke is fatal to Terry's implied-end-of-time assertion since John said, "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."

So, not only does John say, "the world is passing away" (present tense), he states twice more that "it is" (present tense) the last hour; therefore Terry's mishandling of present tense language as future tense corroborates my opening remarks stellarly! Terry has failed, epically, to produce a passage which says that time will end, and even his asserted implication is falsified.

It should resonate with the honest hearts that everything I say, and have said, is exactly what the text(s) says, while Terry resorts to "I think..." "if," "it may be," "it can mean," "that could mean," "it's not entirely true," various reconstructions of texts, and redefining biblical terms, all too typical of Futurists.

I will restate the foundation of my argument here before we look at Terry's answer to my first question.

Without an EOT, there cannot be a future-to-us second coming; nor can there be a 'final' Judgment, nor an out-of-casket corpse-revivifying resurrection of all who have lived on the Earth since Creation.

• Since Terry avers that the law of Moses (LOM) was fulfilled and ended at the cross; and:

• Since the EOT did not occur at the cross;

• Then by default, Terry's own assertion corroborates the fact that the EOT is nowhere predicted in the LOM.

Positing the end of the LOM at the cross, or AD 70 becomes a moot point when faced with the indisputable fact that the EOT has not occurred. It cannot be argued that the LOM predicted the EOT, and that the LOM ended at the cross. This is simple/irrefutable logic!

• The fact that Peter is quoting from the LOM in 2Pet.2-3;

• Which fact is indisputable since he says he is reminding his readers of "the words which were spoken by the holy prophets" (2Pet.3:1f); and:

• Since the EOT is not predicted in the LOM;

• Then it's indisputable that Peter is not and cannot be predicting the EOT in 2Pet.3.

If the scriptural/exegetical/hermeneutical support for the EOT can be demonstrated, it must be from the NT, and from some text other than 2 Peter 3.

• Since Peter said, " And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things …," (2Pet.3:15f);

• Then it's unquestionable that Peter's Day of The Lord (DOTL) coming like a thief in the night is Paul's DOTL coming like a thief in the night.

• Since Peter's DOTL is not an EOT prediction;

• Then Paul's prediction of the DOTL coming like a thief in the night (1Th.4-5/2Th.1-2) likewise cannot be predicting an EOT coming-appearance of the Lord.

Thus, by basic exegesis and simple logic, married to Terry's own assertion that the LOM ended at the cross, 3 of the most coveted texts cited by Futurists are shown to be completely inadequate in supporting FE.

Terry, please deal with my argument since you are in the Negative!

In my first question, I asked, "To which age do you apply Isaiah 65:20-25?" Terry responded, "Christian age viewed in its' relation to heaven and eternity." I realize that Terry is going to blow smoke and throw dust in the air with his "relation to heaven and eternity," clause hoping to distract you, however, his admission is fatal as he surrenders his entire paradigm, because this text, which Terry admits applies to the Christian age is preceded by the New Creation (NC), i.e., the new heavens, new earth, new Jerusalem and the resurrection (Isa.65:17-19), which also is posited in the time frame of the evangelizing/salvation of the Gentiles, God's people being called by a new/different name, and the slaying of Judah.

Tell us Terry, was Judah slain in the first century?

As I have demonstrated that the OT does not predict the EOT, then this prediction of the coming NC cannot be an EOT event; this also proves that the resurrection was not an EOT event. Furthermore, since Peter was eagerly anticipating the new heavens and new earth, reminding his audience of the words spoken before by the holy prophets, then it's unquestionable that Peter is quoting from this text which again, cannot be an EOT event, and which precedes the scene depicted in the text which Terry admits applies to the Christian age.

Now, let's notice what Peter actually said :

2Pe 3:10 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←[lythēsetai-future tense] with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:11 All these, then, being dissolved←[ lyomenōn-present tense]...

2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved ,←[lythēsetai-future tense] and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Why did Peter say that the dissolution of the heavens and earth was already in process? Why did John write that the world is passing away? Why did Paul say that the fashion of this world is passing away (1Cor.7:31) if now, 2000 years later we're still here??

Terry's responses to scriptures:

To Jer.31:35f, Terry said, "this text does not deny that a spiritual nation can be tied to mortal time and continue on into immortality (timelessness). Further, the text is not saying God can't end the covenant promise of day and night, but that MAN could not end it," (italics mine).

Let's review what the text says:

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me , saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever ."

Dear readers, do you see anything in this text which says God can end the covenant of day & night, but man can't? This is one of the most blatant reconstructions of a text as I have ever seen as Terry inserts a whole 'nother doctrine into this passage. This is the "IF-THEN" construct, not a God-can-but-man-can't statement. Jehovah said "If those ordinances depart from before me-then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. "

Please answer my question Terry since you are in the Negative: did, or can the seed of Israel cease from being a nation?

Let the reader again note that Terry completely ignored the companion text I gave to the one above, which is:

Jer.33:19-22:

"...If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne ; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David ... "

Please answer my question Terry since you are in the Negative: Can/could Jehovah's covenant with David be broken, so that there would not be a Son to reign upon his throne?

Because Terry responds to Psalms 82 when my text was Psalms 89 suggests that my Affirmative seriously rattled his cage! The fact that he only responds to the first verse, and says, "...but that could mean" (my emphasis) is just more of his hermeneutic of obfuscation mentioned above. These are seriously pitiful responses from a debate opponent!

This Psalm elucidates Jehovah's sworn Davidic covenant that He would make David's seed (Messiah) to endure for ever, "and his throne as the days of heaven,"

Please answer my question Terry since you are in the Negative: If the days of heaven cease at your imaginary EOT, what happens to Jehovah's covenant with His Firstborn?

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, ►AND◄→ his throne AS THE SUN before me. It shall be established for ever AS THE MOON , and as a faithful witness in heaven," (Psa.89:34-37);

" Howbeit the LORD would not destroy the house of David , because o f the covenant that he had made with David, and as he promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever , " (2Ch.21:7).

Terry, you arguing that time will end and the universe ceasing to exist is equivalent to forcing God to break His sworn covenant and to be a liar. Is that how far you will go to cling to your traditions?

To Psa.102:15-20/Isa 61:1-3, Terry obfuscates and reconstructs my argument, creating a SM diversion in which he hopes you will think I said "the glory of the Lord was only seen in AD 70," (emphasis mine). For distraction, Terry avers, "The Lord appeared in His glory in His first coming, demonstrating it in various ways, in His transfiguration and in His resurrection and ascension," (emphasis mine).

In his debate with Steve Baisden, in the attempt to rebut the this-age/that-age argument from Luke 20:24f, Terry said, "'This age' is this age of mortality, and 'that age' is the age of immortality. Simple! Steve says the age to come is the Christian age. No! It is the age of immortality. This age of mortality includes many ages of mortal time. That immortal age begins at 'the last day' of this mortal age."

So, Terry is arguing that the Christian age is the age of mortality, and "heaven/eternity" is the age of immortality, and thus, when the Christian-age/age-of-mortality ends, heaven/eternity/immortal-age begins.

Since Christ appeared in the end of the ages, (Heb.9:26), and since Paul said the ends of the ages have come (1Cor.10:11), then Terry has admitted that Christ's first appearing occurred at the end of the age of mortality, which would mean that the age of immortality began in the first century.

Terry has just refuted his own Proposition and proven mine for me.

Don't be distracted from the fact that Terry has failed to exegetically disprove even one of my arguments, i.e., the passages I submitted prove there is no such thing as the EOT in the Bible; and, that Terry has admitted, in every instance, the first century fulfillment of the Lord appearing in glory, the building up of Zion, the reward given by the Lord (Isa.40/Mat.16:27f), and even Daniel 7:13f.

I have demonstrated from what several passages say, verbatim, that there's no such thing in the Bible as the EOT; and, without an EOT, there cannot be a future-to-us second coming of the Lord.