Without knowing a lot more detail - which I would not expect to be given on a public forum - I would broadly agree with the statements given, adding only that if he would refuse to work while preaching then he has some real problems of maturity. The overwhelming majority of IFB preachers are "tentmaking preachers" (working a secular job to pay the bills) and even fewer have never worked a secular job while preaching. It shows a willing and sacrificial heart, and a hardworking spirit. If he won't do that, then I would suggest that he won't last the tough times and will quit the ministry before too long.
You are very heavily suggesting that Brother Scott is CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE with his grammatical analysis. He is not changing any meaning, but rather properly explaining it. He has not even begun to explain the prophecies of the passage at this point, but rather who the prophecy applies to. Without establishing this point, the prophecies are then free to be forced into almost any application. The grammar is the ONLY WAY to properly apply the information, for without grammar the sentence CAN CARRY NO USEFUL MEANING. You really need to display EXACTLY HOW brother Scott is changing the meaning by using grammar, or you need to stop these accusations. And a little phrase saying you are not applying it to Brother Scott is simply a lie - anyone reading your posts ABOUT BROTHER SCOTT that include such broad accusations can only see them as applying to him, as he is the subject. As to you "not liking me" I don't really care about your opinion of me - I simply want you to stop poisoning my threads with your misquotes and false accusations. This is supposed to be about the debate - which I will remind you that you said we shouldn't be commenting on, which you obviously don't believe and were only saying that because you want to stop me commenting. And by the way, quoting the whole post of Alan shows your statement regarding his words as wrong - but you don't care about grammar, so you can make him say whatever you want. That is (twice now) deceitful representation of him. How about you now stop your false accusations against both Alan and Brother Scott and leave this thread to its actual purpose. Or will you only be happy when this thread is also locked or deleted?
Wouldn't care to quote Alan IN CONTEXT would you? That probably wouldn't suit your purpose. "Alan said: Yes, at some times he is hard to understand due to being grammeticly precise, but he is doing it so that in every aspect of the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 we have a correct interpretation of the passage. Pastor Markle has actually helped me in my grammatical understanding of this difficult passage of scripture. As I stated previously, I am lacking in the fine art of the grammer constuction of the scriptures. This is my problem; it is not the scriptures problem."
There now - Alan has no problem understanding Brother Scott, in fact he is learning from him.
Actually brother, in spite of what someone has said in this thread, I don't think I have seen anyone say they couldn't follow Brother Scott's posts, other than that person. They are complete and detailed, but sensible and well explained - even his grammar points. I could never write it the way he does, for I don't have his knowledge of grammar, but I can certainly understand and follow what he is saying - and as a bonus, I am learning more about language structure too.
Well this dumb bloke's simple reading of that passage matches exactly with Brother Scott's analysis. It is basic reading comprehension. To suggest as you have here that proper grammar changes the meaning of the text is at the least disingenuous...... As has been stated recently on several occasions, the grammar gives the meaning to any sentence - it does not somehow magically change that meaning.
1 Tim 115 - give it up brother. It is just not possible to discuss the issue of giving on this forum. It is only possible to be told you are wrong about giving. Unfortunately, discussion whereby you propose a thought or ask a question which is then discussed and which might on turn lead you to learn about this matter is always drowned out.
Why yes, she was given the promise before she gave, BUT she gave before the promise was fulfilled, whilst she WAS STILL IN HER POVERTY. And in fact she gave by command of the man of God, AND she was a widow, who should receive not give, AND she was to provide for the man of God BEFORE her own needs. In fact, while you pull me up on a side point, you conveniently ignore these many issues. Giving is not so cut and dried as you wish it to be.
You can speculate about it all you like but the facts are plain - she gave to the man of God when she had almost nothing, and her words indicate that she thought it would be her last meal. That was the entirety of my point, and unworthy men today do not change the facts of the account. There are examples of people without means giving sacrificially in the Bible, AND in some cases these people are rewarded, indicating that it was not outside God's will for them to give such. If it was not outside God's will then, it is unreasonable to suggest it is outside God's will now, unless you can show command otherwise. This DOES IN NO WAY suggest that every instance of someone without means has to give to their own sacrifice - it is still as the Lord leads. But it is certainly not wrong for someone to hive sacrificially If the Lord leads them to do so.
The example I gave previously is one where sacrificial giving was fully displayed. The widow was in the deepest of need but gave to the man of God. Sacrificial giving is certainly not unknown in the Bible.
I personally don't feel that you need to match his grammatical analysis, but if he is wrong it should be easily displayed. I could not match his understanding of the intricacies of language, but I could pinpoint an error in his explanation of grammar if I found one - in plain and no doubt poor language. But I also have no doubt that if there was an error, that he would acknowledge and correct it or correct my challenge if it was wrong. Remember, this is not me we are talking about, but brother Scott..... Alternatively, if there truly is something that makes the grammar null and void then it should be displayed. However, since written language in particular relies on grammar and punctuation to impart knowledge and understanding, it is highly unlikely that the grammar will be incorrect in the proper understanding of a biblical concept. Please continue with your explanation of why his grammar is wrong - if your language is not as technical as his I am sure it will be acceptable just so long as it is clear.
Yes, he and Linda are married. I personally think the question was plain and sensible. The verses that have already been used here I think make it plain that a person who refuses to give is in sin. However the simple act of giving does necessarily remove that sin - unless it is given from a willing heart, it is still sin although it is actually given. The matter one who is unable to give but has a heart that would give if it were possible, is a different and separate matter. I think it is plain that the Lord would have us give as our heart is moved to, but there are times when it simply is not possible. Elijah during the drought for instance did not hive but was not in sin - the widow he went to gave her last willingly, and in this particular case was rewarded for it. As with so much of the Christian life, it is the heart behind the action that counts, rather than the action itself. Give out of duty only and it is sin. Not give out of rebellion is sin. Give willingly as the Lord moves you is not sin. Not give but with a heart that would if the means was there is not sin. Conclusion: either giving or not giving can be done in sin - it is the heart motive that determines the sinfulness.