David Green’s Talbotian Fantasy (Repost, Dave Forgot to Respond)
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by dee dee on 20-06-2012
Print This Post
Have many of you read Animal Farm? If so, this analogy would make perfect sense in relation to David Green’s Talbotian Fantasy. Like Biblical parables, there is one main point I am making, though I am sure, in classic form, the cosmonauts will concentrate on pigs and contests. So here we go…
At the beginning, when the animals take over, there was a conflict between a good pig, Snowball, and an evil pig, Napolean. Napolean prevails, and Snowball is ran off. From that point on, Napolean cannot admit any breakdown in his own system, so that whenever anything goes wrong, well, it must be the long-absent Snowball’s fault. If a fence breaks, Snowball must have crept back in the night and broken it. If crops fail, well it is obvious that Snowball must have poisoned them.
And so it is with David Green’s peculiar obsession with Dr. Talbot. He is invoked as the causal agent for nearly everything theologically displeasing to David Green.
Here are some examples. Perhaps I will add more if David provides us with more such poignant samples.
In speaking of his allegation that Christians have only one text with which to condemn hyperpreterists, David Green makes this astounding statement:
Since I wrote that, Dr. Talbot has added 1 John 4:3 to the “Hyper-Preterists Are Damned” category. But the Talbot-approved exegesis of that verse is so comically flawed there’s no reason to give it any countenance.
Yet…. I was making this precise argument years before I ever met Dr. Talbot (and even today, I personally don’t know if Dr. Talbot would agree with me, and quite honestly, it matters not one way or another). This was written and published by me in October 2005:
Further, if a hyper-preterist goes down that road, he finds himself in yet another heresy that is specifically condemned by Scripture. There are two similar passage, 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7, which speak of deceivers and antichrists who deny that Christ has come in the flesh. While the phrase “come in the flesh” is the same in both passages, the Greek construction is not. In the second passage the perfect, rather than the present, participle has been used. This argues strongly for a “timeless present” indicating not only Christ’s past coming in the flesh, but his current abiding in the flesh, and as many have argued, including the late Walter Martin, his future coming in the flesh. [35] The consequence then of the denial of any current enfleshment of Christ is that such a person is antichrist.
David is aware I wrote this since he and Samuel Frost discussed the article it comes from and Samuel wrote a response to it (when he was a hyperpreterist).
This is very similar to the fantasy that David had regarding PaulT’s posts on Acts 24 and “mello” in which David falsely claimed:
Clearly unable to deal with content in the above post Mr. Green writes,
Anyone who is familiar with TalbotT knows that his “ghost writer” wrote that for him.
As it turns out, TalbotT’s “ghost writer” actually wrote it for him back in October of 2009.
And TalbotT was so impressed with it, he has been re-cycling it word-for-word ever since (December 2009, May 2011).
And as Paul pointed out, that exact post was actually first posted on CARM in September 2008, prior to Paul ever meeting Dr. Talbot. David has refused to retract this statement.
And of course here is the overaraching theme of David’s delusion:
Talbot uses his disciples as “human shields” and sends them on “suicide missions.” They defend Talbot and his doctrine tooth and nail, while Talbot remains safe behind his curtain. And, EVERY argument Talbot gives them is a loser. Every argument. Bar none. His disciples lose every single time. The humiliating defeats that Talbot’s disciples endure while defending his position and his arguments makes us all cringe.
I challenged David to provide any arguments of mine that were given to me by Dr. Talbot. Just one. There are allegedly so many it should be easy.
What has been David’s answer? Crickets. Nada.
A strong delusion indeed. DTOD (Dr. Talbot Obsessive Disorder).
2 Thess 2:11, Anyone?
This is the well known phenonmenon of the “scapegoat” so well documented in the Christian anthropology of Rene Girard. However in some sense Calvinists, although I don’t know about Dr. Talbot, are guilty of this as well. Everything which is theologically incorrect is instantly branded as “Arminian” even though Arminius himself was a stirling Christian gentleman, and would probably be considered a crypto-Calivinist by today’s standards.
Its better simply to refrain from scapegoating and ad hominim arguments…this is bad even by virtuous pagan standards, not to mention those of Christ!
what are you talking about?
I just meant, ad hominim arguements=bad arguements. Probably my introduction of the term “scapegoating” was too broad.
I just saw this piece, and it is damning. I guess ALL of the commentaries that I have searched on I John 4:3 are, how did Green put it, “comically flawed.” Funny, because Paul Gates, not Dr. Talbot, told me about this verse. I went through my commentaries on the passage and, bling bling, there it was. Then, I searched the commentaries at the Whitefield Library and bling bling, they ALL said the same thing about this verse, which utterly DESTROYS Green’s view that Jesus is, how is worded Paul, “something akin to spirit.” And, as the article Dee wrote, she got it from Scheps, a scholar (a comically flawed scholar). So, I think I will go with the Greek here, and the commentaries: Jesus came and remains in the flesh (in his body of incarnation, glorified). This is what the Biblee teaches. Green flatly and explicitly denies it. Therefore, Green is “not of God”. Pure and simple. May he repent and come to worship the Incarnate Lord and Savior, who resides in Heaven, and from which he shall come again, bodily, to restore all things.
Dave has been utterly silent here about his false claims about where people get their ideas.
Also (and I think I footnoted this in my article) Walter Martin’s Cult Reference Bible makes this point as well. Dave shares many idea with the JWs oddly enough, so many contra-JW apologetics serve here as well.
Maybe “someone” could mention this little fact, eh?
Green’s noted denial of I John 4:2, “If ten thousand commentaries actually said that the perfect tense of “come” in 1 John 4:3 NECESSITATES –not “leaves open the possibility” but NECESSITATES– that Jesus is still in His first-century flesh-body, then those commentaries would absolutely be “comically flawed,” because they would be grammatically wrong.
As I wrote in a previous message:
If one begins with the assumption that Jesus is still in His individual, first-century flesh-body today, then the perfect active participle (past action with present result) in 1 John 4:3 can be seen as validating that assumption (Past action: Jesus “came” to Earth in the flesh. Present result: Jesus is “still here” on Earth in His individual, first-century flesh-body). But of course, the perfect active participle in 1 John 4:3 in no way proves or necessitates that assumption. One does not need to be a Greek scholar to know this. :^)
Apparently, the Greek scholars are all wrong, and Green, not a Greek scholar at all in way, shape or form, is correct. Apparently, the Greek Scholars are not, in reality, Greek scholars at all. They are all comically flawed. And we are supposed to take this man (and this movement) seriously.
I have said it once and will say it again, this point and this point alone shatters Hyper Preterism. Notice that Green puts in “came to earth” (not in the text). Green, who does not know Greek, has to smuggle in “came to earth” so that he can build his denying argument. The Greek is “came in flesh”. What remains is that which the perfect modifies, “in flesh”. But, Green knows the “grammar” here, right? Jesus came, and remains, “in flesh” (in carnis). Thus, the denial of the continuing incarnation is a denial of the incarnate Jesus Christ, the man. Green worships a “different Jesus.” Pure and simple. He does not worship the incarnate Lord and Savior. This is black and white.
Secondly, in addition to the positive affirmation of I John 4:3, and in having the rational assumption that Jesus ascended bodily and remains bodily in heaven, Green should furnish a clear Scripture that DENIES and AFFIRMS that Jesus did indeed shed the body of his incarnation. Rather, what we have, is confirmation over and over again in the Scriptures.
Sam,
As we’ve noted several times, all Mr. Green seems to be able to “argue” is what he believes, based on what he is required to read into the text (i.e. eisegesis), is “infered” in the text. Clearly Mr. Green is reading into 1 John 4:2 the concept of location just as he reads into Luke’s account Paul saw “something that is Spirit”. Thus, as in the case of Luke’s account we find Mr. Green contradicting what Paul explained himself on the issue.
In the case of 1 John 4:2 Mr. Green is contradicting what John wrote. Mr. Green exchanges what the author intended to convey as mode of existence for location of existence. The point of John is as the author Dee recommended, J.A. Schep, points out quoting A. Ross, S. Greydanus, R.C. H. Lenski and P.W. Hoon, “What happened at the incarnation has not been undone, He is Christ who “is come, who came and who abides in the flesh”” IOW as the footnote Dr. Schep provides explains, “The incarnation is in one sense an event; in another sense it is also a process eternally going on…”(The Nature of the Resurrection Body, J.A. Schep, Eerdmans, pg.72)
Why does Mr. Green work so hard to insert concepts into the text not there and deny the concepts which in fact are in the text? I’m wondering if on the Day of Judgment when faced with the fact he has been denying Christ Jesus Mr. Green will likewise hear, as Paul heard, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks”. Now that is a concept, the consequences of which I really don’t want to contemplate.
God Bless,
Sam,
I see where Mr. Sullivan has weighed in on the issue claiming,
Wonder why Mr. Sullivan is weighing in on Greek when he can’t even explain why BDAG got the slotting of “mello” in Acts 24:15 wrong. Anyway, I’m not sure if Mr. Sullivan’s remark is attributable to a typo or just not paying attention. The text is 1 John 4:2, and as far as I can tell, the only thing Mr. Green has demonstrated is his inability to deal with what is actually written. Nor does the quote from Mr. Holland help Mr. Sullivan out. No one, as far as I know, is suggesting the N.T. authors were arguing against full blown “Christian” Gnosticism. However, everyone that I’m aware of is claiming, at least one of the opponents of Christianity the N.T. authors were arguing against held “Gnostic-Like” (as in embryonic development) views.
Interestingly enough, Edwin M. Yamauchi in his book titled “Pre-Christian Gnosticism” explains of John’s Epistles, “Because of the anti-Docetic polemic in the Johannine Epistles there is a widespread view that the opponents were certainly Gnostics. But Docetism may have arisen from a Hellenistic prejudice against the body and therefore would not necessarily imply a fully developed Gnostic theology.” (Pre-Christian Gnosticism, Edwin M. Yamauchi, W/S, pg. 199)
So Mr. Sullivan should have a clear conscience. The view he avows didn’t come from Gnosticism but rather a pagan view of reality. Gotcha, that really helps out Mr. Sullivan. LOL! Which reminds me, what has Mr. Sullivan’s colleague conceded he avows? Oh yeah, that his view is “Gnostic-like”. And what do we know the Docetic’s held? Oh yeah, Christ post His ascension is “something that is Spirit”.
The RINO’s should really update their research capabilities.
So, let me get this straight, the Greek scholars are all wrong, and Sullivan and Green, who have not undergone any Greek, are right about what “en sarki” modifies? These guys are embarassing to themselves. I mean, it’s incredible. And, Paul, as you have pointed out here, it’s even worse!
They understand one thing: if Jesus retains the body of his incarnation (I John 4:2 proves), and Christian orthodoxy is correct to assert the doctrine of the Continuing Incarnation (which they have for nearly two millenia), then Full Preterism is false. They understand what’s at stake here, and this is why they are fighting against it, even when it is so obvious as to what the Greek means (I have not found a commentary yet, out of about 15 of the top ones, to affirm their position).
Green, you have lost this battle. You look like a HSG.
Yeah, and it is our “futurism” which blinds us to the “truth” of the hyper-preterist view. Well, according to Mr. Green and Mr. Sullivan. Pat, standard HP answer when backed into a corner. Our “presupposed” “futurism” is the culprit! LOL
insert clown horn honking sound effect here
Jason’s response is the best.
Am I losing my mind, or is Green? “It is good that Talbotism has now, today, abandoned its (twice-stated) nonsensical position that the perfect tense of “come” in 1 John 4:3 somehow “modifies” “in flesh.” ?? :^O
It is good that Talbotism is now, today, correctly saying (perhaps thanks to Dr. Talbot’s intervention) that “in flesh” actually modifies the word “come.”
But it is unfortunate that Talbotism did not first get its Greek ducks in a row before they consigned us to Gehenna.
However, more importantly . . .
“Sullivan and Green” have never denied that “in flesh” modifies the word “come.” Neither has anyone else. :^)
I’m fairly certain that everyone agrees with the Greek scholars on that one. And as of today, even the Talbot camp now agrees with full preterists and the scholars on this point.
Dave :)”
Paul? Dee? Sharon? Anyone? Haven’t we been saying this ALL ALONG? “in flesh” modifies the perfect “having come” - having come in flesh (and remaining in flesh). Is Dave losing his mind? THIS is what the Greek scholars are saying, Dave. We didn’t make it up. We are merely QUOTING the commentaries. “Having come in flesh and remaining in flesh”. I.E. “continuing incarnation”. Is he this dense? Where’s that clown horn?
The Word of God is doing its work and condemning their hearts. When you see such blind deflection, you see the judgment of God at work.
If anyone bothers to follow the links Dave provided they will see he is up to his old tricks of cut and paste, resulting in out of context mishmash.
Dee Dee… It’s a good time for Jason’s horn!
Concerning 1 John 4:2, Charles Hess wrote:
Oh no, all those commentators are wrong, wrong, WRONG! TALBOT MADE ALL THIS UP I TELL YA!!!!
aside from the pret cosmos prostitute (someone), Green is trully mixed up. Of course, HIS version of FP is the only correct version, never mind the fact that hundreds are on facebook, and we even have one on RCM (John Marra) that supports our contention. Tunnel Vision?
“Talbot-Sam’s Facebook testimonies against preterists are as his other testimonies: False Witness caricatures, exaggerations, straw men, over-generalizations, demonizations, demagogueries, etc. Add to this list the continued misunderstandings that Talbot-Sam has and had about full preterism even while he was a full preterist, and you have testimonies and arguments that are of absolutely no value to lovers of truth. And this sums up Talbot-Sam’s latest demagogic Talbotian article.”
These are not the words of Dave Green in 2010, when I co-wrote a book with the Pret Cosmonauts. Apparently, this admits too much. I duped them, which makes them dupable. I didn’t “understand” FP then, and since that is the case, Mike Bennett are you listening, my articles and past quotes are non-material. They don’t count. Hear that Mike Bennett? Stop quoting old articles. According to your buddy, “even while he was a full preterist” I was clueless.
But, even more than this, Green’s grammatical comedy act over I John 4:2 continues. “I don’t think anyone disagrees that that’s a grammatically possible interpretation.” Ah. Of course, no Greek scholar has used the word “possible”. It is a necessary reading of the Greek text. It is what that text means. Green, then, (you can hear him squirming), tries to use an English example of the perfect: “”Whoever denies Sam Frost having become a full preterist is a liar.” Does this mean Sam Frost is still a Full Preterist? No. But, English ain’t Greek (as my professor used to tell us). Nice try, Dave. But, of course, Dave understands (right) why we use the English past tense (having become) to capture ONE ASPECT of the Greek perfect. English translations do not bring out the sufficient force of the Greek perfect. That’s why we study Greek. That’s why technical Greek commentaries are written. To “bring out” the full force of the text. But, of course, the High School Graduate already knows this, right? Right.
Amazingly, Green then writes, “The Talbot camp should stick to Dee Dee’s damnation text: 2 Tim. 2:16-18. At least in the futurist framework that text actually damns full preterists. As a damnation text against full preterists, 1 John 4:3 doesn’t stick. :)”
So, according to orthodoxy, damning hyper Preterists is entirely LEGITIMATE!!!! Dee, didn’t Dave admit this before? Please provide that doozy of a quote again. I never tire of reading it! Mike Bennett, are ya listening? According to orthodoxy, 2nd Timothy DAMNS YOU. Hence, there should be little squabbling over the fact that Sharon, Dee, Paul, Talbot, Sam, Jason, Gary, Joel, the Confession, the Creeds DAMN hyper Preterism……Dave has “actually” admitted it.
So, Dave, consider yourself damned from the perspective of the Historic Christian Orthodox Faith.
sharon, every commentary I have read says the same thing. Not “possible” but DEFINITE. If you were one sitting in the congregation as John’s letter was read, and you heard the accentuation of ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα you would come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: not only did Christ come in carnis, but he remains in carnis. The same semantic is translated in Jesus, “who has risen” (perfect tense, I Cor 15). That is, he WAS risen, and REMAINS risen. He is the RISEN Lord. He didn’t die again. He remains in the state of Risen One. And, clearly, he was raised bodily. He remains risen, bodily. He cannot die again.
Oh the great cloud of Scriptural Witness against this Heresy!
And, I might add, THIS JESUS, THIS definition of the Continuing Incarnate Lord, is THE definition of the Christian Faith. When WE say “Jesus” THIS is what WE mean. When the Hyper Preterist says “Jesus” he or she DOES NOT MEAN what WE as Christians have said for 2000 years. This affects thier doctrine of the Trinity, too, for in that The Second Person of the Godhead is defined as having two natures, human and divine, and the human nature was defined as “the man, Christ Jesus” having (currently) a resurrected and glorified BODY of his incarnation with a rational soul. Hyper Preterism, then, DENIES the definitions of Chalcedon, Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. Therefore, they are NOT “trinitarian” by definition according to the Orthodox definition. One cannot say they are “trinitarian” and then skirt around one part of the FULL DEFINING MEANINGS of Nicene and Chalcedon. They may have One God, Three Persons, but, as I have shown, the DEFINITION of the Second Person is NOT in accords with the Chalcedonian one. They would have to say, “We believe in Three Persons, One God, with the Second Person defined as having a continuing human nature and divine nature, yet, in regards to his human nature, he no longer retains his human body.” I can hear the 318 Bishops of Nice now: “Heresy!” And, on what accords would they base this on? Scripture!
Just as THIS JESUS will return as He has left.
In body, in His glorified flesh.
Here is something interesting I found:
Sam,
From what I’ve been reading (and you have pointed out), that there isn’t a good English translation of the force of the Greek word for “come” in that verse so I wasn’t too impressed with Dave’s English example.
Dave has another problem though. He admits that our understanding of 1 John 4:2 is a “possibility” as we read here:
So, if it is a “possibility” and it IS the true interpretation of the verse, then to deny it means that his version of hyper-preterism is “the spirit of antichrist” and “not of God.”
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit which does not say this is not from God: this is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you have had word; and it is in the world even now.
A serious charge. If the hyper-preterists want to take this chance with their salvation, then so be it, but it is our duty to continue to point this out for those who may not be quite so brazen and bold.
I wonder if he has told his pastor that he denies the present enfleshment of Christ and asked what this verse would mean to that.
Somehow I doubt that.
Sam, Sharon,
It appears the argument is getting to Mr. Green, who seems to have been silent on the issue for a couple of days. Anyway, apparently having been unable to find a commentary which supports his Docetic premise Mr. Green, falls back to an “alleged” source, who after listing several works which supposedly make no reference to the text of 1 John 4:2 in lieu of the current discussion notes….
For the record one of the works Mr. Green alleges makes no mention of 1 John 4:2 regarding the permanent nature of the incarnation is “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert Reymond (Clarkian lol)” According to Mr. Green Dr. Reymond does NOT list as one of the texts 1 John 4:2 as proclaiming the permanent nature of the incarnation of Christ Jesus. However, Dr. Reymond explains after pointing out, “The historicity and true humanity of the man Jesus bar Joseph of Nazareth is rarely call into question today.” A comment which, btw, should be an explanation for Mr. Green’s “interesting” question and demonstrates just how far removed Mr. Green is from orthodoxy. The point being, the Biblical claim regarding the humanity of Christ Jesus which Dr. Reymond points out equates to the term “flesh” when applied to Christ by explaining it “refers to him in the totality of his humanness as a man”. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Robert L. Reymond, Thomas Nelson, pg. 241)
Anyway back to the alleged claim Dr. Reymond doesn’t list 1 John 4:2 pointing out the permanency of the incarnation. On page 546 in the footnotes we find the following comment;
This has not always been so. Jesus’ true humanness was questioned early on in the Christian era by the Gnostic sects…this view was opposed by the apostles (see 1 John 4:2; 5:6” (Ibid, pg. 546, fn. 2) Indeed regarding the Epistle’s of John Dr. Reymond explains quoting Marshall, “John asserts a “real and lasting union between the Son of God and the flesh of Jesus”. (Ibid, 308)
Not only did Mr. Green and his alleged source get Dr. Reymond wrong, but the mysterious “source” of Mr. Green’s claim went on to explain, “Dr. I. Howard Marshall…Murray J. Harris,…said NOTHING about a grammatical necessity of that teaching in 1 John 4:2-3”
Lets take a look and see what those two sources actually state. First I. Howard Marshall, addressing the grammar of the text, “The incarnation was not a temporary event but the permanent union of god and man in Jesus.” (The Epistles of John, I. Howard Marshall, Eerdmans, pg.205)
J. Murray Harris explains,
So much for the accuracy of Mr. Green’s “alleged” source. Mr. Green concluded with, “I’m confident the Talbot camp will soon refer us to the “several hundreds” of scholars who speak of the grammatical necessity in 1 John 4:2-3.”
I’m not sure why I would need to offer anymore scholars on the issue than those his “alledged” source provided when their actual claims are accurately represented. Whoever the alleged source is, if in fact it is someone other than Mr. Green, is, to put it mildly, a joke. Nevertheless, in either case be it an actual source or one made up, they clearly don’t know what they are talking about and have in fact misrepresented the record. Needless to say, I’m confident Mr. Green and his associates will continue to misrepresent the opinions of those sources they quote.
God Bless,
Excellent Paul! What J. Murray Harris says about the three verses is greatness. Through my studies on this issue, I saw several commentators make reference to these verses and tying them together like he did. I think you should post your comments as a blog.
Blessings,
Sharon
Sharon,
Thank you. Bear in mind when you read Dr. Harris, he isn’t the most conservative of theologians. Anyway, thank you and if I get the time I will convert it into a blog.
God Bless,
Folks,
You got to love this. Mr. Green realizing the “mysterious” source he quoted misrepresented the authors he attempts to rehabilitate himself. Now we know why Mr. Green withdrew his prior quote discussed here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5888#comment-19246” rel=”nofollow”. Mr. Green found out what he was sent did in fact misrepresent those authors we pointed out. Mr. Green explains,
LOL, yes its true, Mr.Green’s source misrepresented Dr. Reymond. I’m glad Mr. Green conceded that point however, lets examine Mr. Green’s rationalization in an effort to rehabilitate his fallacious assertion. Dr. Reymond points out, quoting Marhsall, the permanent nature of the incarnation as Christ Jesus having “everlasting flesh” and cites as reference 1 John 4:2. Well given Dr. Reymond suggests there is no other interpretation of 1 John 4:2 than to understand it as conveying “everlasting flesh”, how else did he arrive at that other than what the “perfect participle” requires it to convey? Is Mr. Green suggesting Dr. Reymond just pulled his conclusion out of thin air?
Interestingly enough on page 241 of the second edition of his Systematic Theology he references 1 John 4:1 as support for the idea of Christ’s humanity. Dr. Reymond explains, “There can be no question that the word “flesh” denotes Christ’s human nature….it uniformly refers to him in the totality of his humanness as a man.” In support of this quote Dr. Reymond cites 1 John 4:1, which appears to be a typographical error because the term “sarx” as in flesh is not in that verse. However, 1 John 4:2, does contain that term and the next reference is 2 John 7. Thus it would appear Dr. Reymond weighs in as to the unequivocal teaching of 1 John 4:2 as requiring the belief that the humanness, the fact Christ Jesus is “man” is born witness by the permanent nature of the incarnation elsewhere in his theology.
Yes, Mr. Green its true, you got caught passing off bad information and rather than just conceding the point you postulate a position which requires Dr. Reymond to have just developed an argument out of thin air. LOL.
Mr. Green continues…
Yes, Mr. Green, I got that quote of Marshall from Dr. Reymond who likewise understands the grammar of the text to unequivocally teach the concept of “everlasting flesh”. That said, the quote I offered is from Marshall’s commentary on the Greek grammar of the 1 John 4:2 as provided in the NIC commentary series published by Eerdmann’s. Dr. Marshall provides no alternative interpretation of the text other which would support Mr. Green’s assertion. Finally, Mr. Green reports…
Sure, Harris is “equivocal” in his summary of how those three texts, one of which is 1 John 4:2 combine to teach the “timeless truth” that as Dr. Harris put it, “John assures us that the “enfleshment” of the Son of God is not only a historical fact but also a permanent fact; the incarnation is irreversible”
Mr. Green’s scrambling wasn’t very effective. However, he, as well as his “mysterious” source has demonstrated once again, he has a hard time dealing with quotes in context. ROFL!
God Bless,
Dave is a busy man. He is so busy denying that he alleged any kind of conspiracy that he forgot to substantiate the conspiracy-esque accusations he made against me.
So, for his convenience, here it is again.
And I just learned “we” are coming out with a book! Wow. Why didn’t you guys tell me.
Unless that reading comprehension thing is up again, and Dave is confused by MY upcoming publishing of my commentary. When they spoke about it, they acted as if it were something new. Parts of it have been updated with some new information, and I am working with an editor as my writing style needs a lot of tightening, but it is my commentary which they have had (and still have) access to for years.
There may be some new appendixes, but nothing unexpected, and sorry guys, I know there are clouds in your coffee and all that, but it isn’t about hyperpreterism in the main, IOW, not about YOU. Whoopsie.