Preterists claim the gospel writers expected the kingdom to come in their lifetimes, and I agree. They did expect it. Although, I say their hopes were without basis--they were just plain wrong. And because they were wrong it has produced the many differences of opinion down through the ages on eschatology. Now with the many recently failed predictions of his return in the last few decades many Christians are once again reinterpreting eschatology. This eventually lead them and others to claim that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. When I was in school studying such things, I didn't know of anyone who dated Revelation before 70 A.D. Now apparently they do.

Their eschatology is trying to reconcile the fact that the N.T. writers claimed Jesus was to return and set up his kingdom during their lifetimes, with the fact that he didn't physically come and set up that kingdom as they claimed he would. Faced with this problem many Christians through the centuries have argued that the kingdom was to be way in the future, while many others have merely claimed that the kingdom was a spiritual one, inaugurated on the day of Pentecost. One excellent book arguing for this later view is by John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Abingdon, 1953). It's a classic book, and I would be surprised if it wasn't still in print. Biblically speaking that's the very best view to take, bar none. Others, like me, have said the N.T. writers were just mistaken.

The Preterists view places New Testament prophetic fulfillment in and around AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans when the temple with its old covenantal sacrificial system, the heaven and earth of the Jews, was destroyed and the new covenant with its heavenly Jerusalem, the new heaven and earth, was inaugurated. Redemption was made complete and the Kingdom was consummated.

But this new view is indeed puzzling to me, and I have a few questions about it. Just like the Jehovah Witnesses who say Jesus returned spiritually in 1914, my questions are similar in kind. One question to you is this: what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD? Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts? If not, then what was he doing? Was there a time between 33 AD and 70 AD when there was no covenant, no promises, no standards to live by? Were Christians still living under the Old Covenant until the temple was destroyed? Was Jesus not yet the King reigning over Christians? How can that be?

Furthermore, what is the difference for the Christian after Jesus returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD? If Jesus was already reigning over the lives of Christians, then what changed? Preterists think it made a difference because the temple was destroyed, along with sacrifices, which leads them to say the Kingdom was inaugurated at that time.

In the first place, I cannot see any difference to the Christian. According to the Bible, sacrifices had already ended in Jesus, and the Spirit had already inaugurated the community of Christians by indwelling believers. The proof was in Jesus' resurrection, whether or not the Jews recognized it as such. If Jesus' resurrection is the only proof that Christians needed, then the destruction of Jerusalem should have proved nothing additional to them, as Christians. This would be the case even if Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed! Think about it. If Jerusalem had never been destroyed with the temple and the sacrifices, then what would have changed for the Christian?

In the second place, it didn't prove anything to the Jews either (did they become Christians?), but neither did Jesus' resurrection. But why should that matter to Christians?

Moreover, if the Trinitarian God has always reigned over his world, then what difference did it make to the world in general that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? Presumably God (Father, Son, & Spirit) never had to ask anyone for permission to reign over his world. The Bible claims he just does, and that he always has done so. It really doesn't matter to God whether or not people acknowledge that he does--he just does. So if preterists are correct that God-in-Jesus started reigning in 70 AD, then who is Jesus now reigning over that he didn't reign over before then? Since his reign has always been over everyone, then it can only mean that he began reigning specifically over Christians in 70 AD. But ever since the inauguration of the church he was supposedly already their king!

So what difference did the destruction of Jerusalem make in the lives of anyone at all with regard to the reign of God-in-Jesus? No One! The only differences are that the destruction of Jerusalem caused many people to be killed (is that what God does to people who don't believe?), and the Jewish religion went through a major change. But the Jewish religion was already supplanted by Christianity decades earlier. Did the destruction of Jerusalem prove anything to the Jews? Hardly. They just changed their views of sacrifices, much like how the preterist are changing their eschatology today because Jesus has not returned, nor ever will.

Oh boy, DJ, you just stepped in it now.

When I was in school studying such things, I didn't know of anyone who dated Revelation before 70 A.D.

Further conformation that you never did your homework. Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell and Robinson's Redating the New Testament were certainly around when/before you were in school, and that's just offhand who I recall.

Their eschatology is trying to reconcile the fact that the N.T. writers claimed Jesus was to return and set up his kingdom during their lifetimes, with the fact that he didn't physically come and set up that kingdom as they claimed he would

We can see your problem already, DJ -- you're locked into dispensational terminology and understanding and trying to grade preterism a failure because it doesn't succeed in something it isn't even trying to argue. Here's a hint: The word parousia is not adequately captured with the English word "coming".

what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD?

What do you mean, "what was he doing"? Jesus was/is the incarnation of divine Wisdom, the tool through which YHWH made the universe and maintains it (Col. 1:15-18). You don't think Jesus was busy?

Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts?

Yep. But here again is where you haven't done your homework. The parousia is regarded as a formal enthronement, that of the Danielic Son of Man (Dan. 7), in heaven. I don't suppose you know the difference between a formal enthronement ceremony and actual rule, do you? Plus, the advent involves conforming signs concerned with events of 70.

The rest of your questions are all based on your lack of homework, so no need to address them specifically. You are miseducatedly under the impression that preterism is arguing for some "difference to the Christian" of a sort of design. In fact, for the ancient Christian in an agonistic setting, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was an honor-vindication of the head of their corporate body and their identity in Christ; and if we were still an agonistic culture (as most of the world is still, BTW), we'd appreciate it more. But asking you to appreciate such things would be a lost cause, since you're not interested in educating yourself.

Since again the rest of your blah blah blah operates under the same misconception and ignorance, I'll ignore it. Come on, DJ -- can you try and find a way to say in 50 words what you now say in 500,000, where 499,950 are just the same junk over and over again?

Did the destruction of Jerusalem prove anything to the Jews? Hardly. They just changed their views of sacrifices, much like how the preterist are changing their eschatology today because Jesus has not returned, nor ever will.

As an aside, how exactly does any of this disprove preterist exegesis of the text?

Originally posted by jpholding

and if we were still an agonistic culture (as most of the world is still, BTW), we'd appreciate it more.

Middle school is pretty agonistic, as is early high school (or all of it if you're not lucky).

Originally posted by Doubting John

Preterists claim the gospel writers expected the kingdom to come in their lifetimes, and I agree.

Duh. Futurism is also an admission that Jesus and the Early Church were wrong. What's your point?

Originally posted by jpholding

Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell and Robinson's Redating the New Testament were certainly around when/before you were in school, and that's just offhand who I recall.

I haven't had a chance to do the full critique I've been promising myself (and I've not read Robinson), but Gentry's got enough holes in his thesis to march an army of error through. I'll keep trying with Gentry, and if I can ever get it finished, I'll give you and Dee Dee a heads-up.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

I haven't had a chance to do the full critique I've been promising myself (and I've not read Robinson), but Gentry's got enough holes in his thesis to march an army of error through. I'll keep trying with Gentry, and if I can ever get it finished, I'll give you and Dee Dee a heads-up.

If you're critiquing Gentry, make sure you don't rely on those silly replies by Thomas Ice. And BTW...remember that with me, if you get into dating documents, you have a lot of prep work to do with other articles too.

Quote:

When I was in school studying such things, I didn't know of anyone who dated Revelation before 70 A.D.


Further conformation that you never did your homework. Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell and Robinson's Redating the New Testament were certainly around when/before you were in school, and that's just offhand who I recall.


Of, course, unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. I knew of Robinson's book, but didn't know he took that stand. By the way, since you agree with Robinson on that point, what about his book, Honest To God? And why should you start to change your eschatology based upon some author whom you yourself would label an agnostic--well he's really just a liberal. Liberals can say such things, but you, a Bible believer? Hmmm.


Quote:

Their eschatology is trying to reconcile the fact that the N.T. writers claimed Jesus was to return and set up his kingdom during their lifetimes, with the fact that he didn't physically come and set up that kingdom as they claimed he would


We can see your problem already, DJ -- you're locked into dispensational terminology and understanding and trying to grade preterism a failure because it doesn't succeed in something it isn't even trying to argue. Here's a hint: The word parousia is not adequately captured with the English word "coming".

You act like I don't know anything. Go ahead if that makes you feel alright. By the way, have you noticed my new signature? Congratulations for bringing me on Tweb! Now everyone will know why I'm here, and they can read for themselves the two threads that caused it--It's because of this demeaning attitude you have--one that would surely be called one of the fruits of the spirit--eh?

But I was not a dispensationalist in the modern Scofield sense of the term. I think amillenialism is your best bet, Biblically.


Quote:

what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD?


What do you mean, "what was he doing"? Jesus was/is the incarnation of divine Wisdom, the tool through which YHWH made the universe and maintains it (Col. 1:15-18). You don't think Jesus was busy?

Now notice how I respond to this. I don't usually say things like "You idiot!", and "don't you know anything?" But you say them all of the time.

I simply respond with a couple of questions. I think that's the reasonabe way to carry on a discussion, well, at least I'll do that until someone first ridicules me.

Anyway, my questions: What exactly was Jesus doing? Was he reigning over Christians, or not? Yes, or no? You later say "yep." Well, how, when, where? How can he reign if he isn't enthroned yet? And if it took 40 earth years for that to happen then what about those 40 years? Your exegesis to me is the same twisted logic that the Jehovah's Witnesses used when they too experienced a failed prediction of Jesus' return.

Quote:

Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts?


Yep. But here again is where you haven't done your homework. The parousia is regarded as a formal enthronement, that of the Danielic Son of Man (Dan. 7), in heaven. I don't suppose you know the difference between a formal enthronement ceremony and actual rule, do you? Plus, the advent involves conforming signs concerned with events of 70.


A formal enthronment? Where did this take place? And how long did such a thing take, what with a timeless being and all doing it (if you accept that view). Was there a big banquet? And, if he was being enthroned during those 40 years or so then is it fair to say that he wasn't a king until he was enthroned? But didn't the Bible call him the Messiah on earth? I really fail to see how the way you ridicule my questions take my questions seriously. I suppose if you just keep doing that it makes my questions look like nonsense, and since you don't have good answers to them it sure makes you feel like you've dealt the death blow to me. Hmmm.

I don't think so at all. You have substance to your posts, I'll admit that, but where you lack substance, which is LEGION, you resort to red herrings and ridicule. So whenever you ridicule, let the reader of JP's posts know that he just doesn't have an answer to that specific problem. It's obvious to me anyway.

Confirming signs? Sun turned to blood, type things? That's all apocalyptic writing, and you can read about it in Leon Morris' little book: Apocalyptic And what about the resurrection itself? Are you saying that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is a bigger sign than that to the world? Well, then, let's have a new thread on the destruction of Jerusalem which proves Christianity is true. A newer and better Christian apologetic has just emerged! But in the process many lives were snuffed out. Yep, that's a loving God alright. "You don't believe so I'll kill you. That'll teach them." For more on this see the thread: "The God of the Bible Doesn't Exist."

The rest of your questions are all based on your lack of homework, so no need to address them specifically.


Really? Now that's an answer that is no answer.


As an aside, how exactly does any of this disprove preterist exegesis of the text?


So, now, after ridiculing me, you ask me a question? Why would you ask me anything, if what I say usually doesn't make any sense? Well, I'll tell you, since you obviously don't know (heh, that was fun, and I learned it from you!). We must always consider history, science, personal experience and logic into any Biblical interpretation.

While experience is not the test for truth, our understanding of the truth must be able to explain personal experience. Experience has always been a check on exegesis, whether it comes to Wesleyan perfectionism, perseverance of the saints, second coming predictions, Pentecostal miracle workers, understanding marriage, parenting, ministry, and so on. The whole science/religion discussion is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with what scientists have experienced through empirical observations of the universe.

We must properly understand history to know about supposed fulfilled prophecy, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

And our Biblical exegesis must answer the questions of reason, such as I asked in my earlier post. If one wants to hold to post-millenialism, then it's fair game to ask whether or not this world is getting better. Ya see, that would be a check on their exegesis. And if one wants to affirm preterism, then answering the questions I have offered should be something that would either affirm or deny your exegesis.

I am really really surprised that you didn't know this. Really!

Don't forget to check out my signature, below.

Originally posted by jpholding

If you're critiquing Gentry, make sure you don't rely on those silly replies by Thomas Ice.

I thought Dr. Ice's first name was "Whupped" ....

And BTW...remember that with me, if you get into dating documents, you have a lot of prep work to do with other articles too.

JP, that's the problem: last time I read your document dating stuff, it was ... built on some assumptions that I would consider extremely questionable. You still believe in, and hold to, a traditional authorship for the Tanach ... OK, that's your privelege. But to base your academic work on that premise is to reject, a priori, any possible evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.

With all respect, my friend, you're no more capable of rational evaluation than FormerFundie or Doubting John. You just have more panache.

DJ that has to be one of the most ignorant critiques of preterism I have seen. Only SirYapalot has you beat, and perhaps kendemyer.

A Cup of Mystery:

I said:

Preterists claim the gospel writers expected the kingdom to come in their lifetimes, and I agree.

You said:

Duh. Futurism is also an admission that Jesus and the Early Church were wrong. What's your point?

Why the "Duh"?

You'd better be careful about using that word, unless you are prepared to eat it.


Here's what I believe. The early disciples expected Jesus to physically come back to earth and set up an earthly kingdom with him reigning on a throne in Jerusalem.

What's there not to get, since I do not believe the Bible?


IT DID NOT HAPPEN, NOR WILL IT EVER HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, EITHER!

DUH.

Dee Dee, you call this ignorant because I didn't specifically deal with the Biblical exegesis. As JP Holding suggested, such a critique doesn't affect preterism, either.

But your understanding of preterist's exegesis should be able to offer some answers to my questions, and if you cannot, then you either need to change your exegesis, or come to my side of the fence.

Perhaps, then, it might be one of the best critiques of preterism you've seen.

Specifically answer my questions. Go ahead. Show me with reason that your exegesis is correct and can stand up to reason. And, with a God of reason, this isn't an unfair demand.

DJ, all of your questions have been answered in the various published pieces I have done. I have better things to do other than respond to someone who wasn't even aware that there have always been scholars that date Revelation to pre-70 and didn't even do something as google before they embarassed themselves - so back to much more interesting things, like watching the grass grow.

Originally posted by Flushing John

Quote:

Of, course, unlike you, I don't claim to know everything.

The real problem is not that you don't know everything, but that you don't know ANYthing.

I knew of Robinson's book, but didn't know he took that stand. By the way, since you agree with Robinson on that point, what about his book, Honest To God?

Got some reason to change the subject, do you? I haven't read it. Nor was Robinson the one on whom I made any start on changing my eschatology (RC Sproul was actually the very first I read on this), so sorry, pick yourself up off the floor any try again with another diversionary excuse.

Liberals can say such things, but you, a Bible believer?

Sure, DJ. Unlike you when you were a fundy, I evaluate scholars on the merits of their case, not on what label I affix to their forehead. I appreciate the works of many "liberals". That you don't make this distinction shows that you didn't pay much attention in class at Trinity.

You act like I don't know anything.

And you're doing nothing at the moment that dispels this notion; in particular, you are certainly not answering the point I made.

By the way, have you noticed my new signature? Congratulations for bringing me on Tweb!

Yeah, it's pretty dull. Think you can do better? Maybe include a pic of yourself gnashing your teeth and with tears streaming from your eyes as you massage your tanned bottom?

It's because of this demeaning attitude you have--one that would surely be called one of the fruits of the spirit--eh?

You bet! The joy of bringing evil down to its knees is incomparable. Even evil-wannabees.

But I was not a dispensationalist in the modern Scofield sense of the term. I think amillenialism is your best bet, Biblically.

That's nice. It still remains that you're force-fitting terms and then complaining about failure to meet your artificial expectations.

I don't usually say things like "You idiot!", and "don't you know anything?" But you say them all of the time.

[

I do tend to encounter idiots all of the time.

What exactly was Jesus doing? Was he reigning over Christians, or not? Yes, or no? You later say "yep." Well, how, when, where?

How? As leader of their social ingroup, he was the model and acted as broker between the believer and YHWH. It was he who brokered the covenant and dictated the rules of the Kingdom.
When? When any person proclaimed loyalty to him as broker of YHWH's covenant.
Where? From heaven. Where else?

How can he reign if he isn't enthroned yet?

I guess you still don't grasp the distinction of a FORMAL enthronment, do you? Maybe an analogy will help clear your miseducated mind.

Question: When Pope John Paul II died, did his reign end when he actually died? Or did it end when the conclave destroyed the "fisherman's ring" with his seal on it? According to the Catholics, the latter is the case:

When a pope dies, the cardinal chamberlain or chancellor (camerlengo), accompanied by a large number of the high dignitaries of the Papal Court, comes into the room where the body lies; and the principal or great notary makes an attestation of the circumstance. Then the cardinal chamberlain calls out the name of the deceased pope three times, striking the body each time with a gold hammer; and as no response comes, the chief notary makes another attestation. After this, the cardinal chancellor demands the Fisherman's Ring, and certain ceremonies are performed over it; and then he strikes the ring with the golden hammer, and an officer destroys the figure of Peter by the use of a file. From this moment all the authority and acts of the late pope pass to the College or Conclave of Cardinals.

http://www.jjkent.com/articles/fishermans-ring-pope.htm

You're falsely arguing that preterists say 70 AD is when Christ would begin to reign, when in fact we say this was when Christ would be formally enthroned -- just as the Pope's death was not when his authority passed, but when the Fisherman's ring was destroyed. An even more precise analogy is what happened between the ascension of the Holy Roman Emperor and their coronation: Upon their election (or ascension if elected as King of the Romans prior to the death of the previous Emperor) they were officially the Emperor-elect until their coronation by the pope.

Get it now, DJ? I know it's hard to think outside your cultural blinders, but do try for our sake.

A formal enthronment? Where did this take place?

You know the text of Daniel 7, I take it. Maybe you don't. The one like a Son of Man is enthroned in heaven.

And how long did such a thing take, what with a timeless being and all doing it (if you accept that view).

Hypostatic Wisdom exists within time, actually, so "timeless being" is of no issue to me here.

Was there a big banquet?

Who cares? Do you? Why? Are you getting tired of "peel back foil to expose tater tots" every night?

And, if he was being enthroned during those 40 years or so then is it fair to say that he wasn't a king until he was enthroned?

Only if you're culturally ignorant, I'd say.

But didn't the Bible call him the Messiah on earth? I really fail to see how the way you ridicule my questions take my questions seriously.

Precisely. I don't. Dee Dee is right; you offered one of the stupidest critiques of preterism ever made.

I suppose if you just keep doing that it makes my questions look like nonsense,

It's not hard.

and since you don't have good answers

This from a guy who thinks asking if there was a banquet is a worthwhile question to ask?

to them it sure makes you feel like you've dealt the death blow to me

Feeling really doesn't play any part in the way an INTJ operates, DJ. You were DOA before I got here...this is just a case of beating the dead horse.

Confirming signs? Sun turned to blood, type things?

Yup, only that's not to be read with your quasi-dispensational literalism. Here's the deal, DJ -- you're just too dumb when it comes to preterism right now, so before you press the handle again, read my series on the subject http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html where you will find things like what "moon (not sun) turned to blood" means (good grief, you can't even get that right!) and I am sure Dee Dee has some recommends as well. Between the two of us you'll get the spanking of your life on this subject; so you'd best get informed to make the humilation a little more bearable.

That's all apocalyptic writing, and you can read about it in Leon Morris' little book: Apocalyptic

And that's your full bibliography? No wonder you're lost.

And what about the resurrection itself? Are you saying that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is a bigger sign than that to the world?

More obvious, sure. Bigger is a relative term....but it doesn't matter in the least. Honor vindication (have you understood that critical concept yet?) doesn't require tape measure.

For more on this see the thread: "The God of the Bible Doesn't Exist."

You're getting thumped nicely there, as it happens, but I added two more cents already.

Really? Now that's an answer that is no answer.

What preceded was of sufficiency. There's no need to answer your constantly reformulated diatribes more than once.

We must always consider history, science, personal experience and logic into any Biblical interpretation.

Taking the blather out, your original appeal at best might be considered an appeal to "logic" but that would in no sense refute a preterist exgesis of the text. Then again I can understand why you would avoid exegetical issues; hard data seems to be your weak point again and again.

While experience is not the test for truth, our understanding of the truth must be able to explain personal experience.

So how does experience help you where a text of another social world foreign to you is concerned?

And if one wants to affirm preterism, then answering the questions I have offered should be something that would either affirm or deny your exegesis.

I am really really surprised that you didn't know this. Really!

It made no sense, primarily because your questions were simply so inane from the perspective of one familiar with the agonistic tenor of the culture. But you are right: had I been more ignorant, the questions would have made sense. Thank you.

Don't forget to check out my signature, below.

Don't forget what, now? Oh, and don't forget Tophet's words either:

You conceded that you are a liar.

You conceded that you are a hypocrite.

You conceded that you are a coward.

You conceded you are ignorant about Christianity.

You conceded that you are mentally deficient.

You conceded that you blame other people for your own failures.

You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.

You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.


Cya.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

believe in, and hold to, a traditional authorship for the Tanach ... OK, that's your privelege. But to base your academic work on that premise is to reject, a priori, any possible evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.

Hmm. Money where your mouth is -- it is easy to make the accusation of "a priori" but whence the proof? I do no such thing. Show me I do. I find that the evidence dictates the conclusion -- to paraphrase an old English prof of mine who said this of Shakespeare, "If Moses (or whoever) did not write this, then someone exactly like him at the same time did."

Perhaps a one on one debate, eh, in the Gym? I could use the break from the sillier people here.

Originally posted by jpholding

Hmm. Money where your mouth is -- it is easy to make the accusation of "a priori" but whence the proof? I do no such thing. Show me I do. I find that the evidence dictates the conclusion -- to paraphrase an old English prof of mine who said this of Shakespeare, "If Moses (or whoever) did not write this, then someone exactly like him at the same time did."

Perhaps a one on one debate, eh, in the Gym? I could use the break from the sillier people here.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Why the "Duh"?

You'd better be careful about using that word, unless you are prepared to eat it.

First and foremost, "duh" is not precisely a word ... more of a sound effect.

Secondly, I use it because for all your degrees, you're being rather stupid. So you don't believe in the Bible--does it pick your pocket or break your leg that there are people out there who do believe? John, I'm not a Christian, yet as much as I disagree with Dee Dee, JP, and Tophet about their religious beliefs, I don't have some compulsion to come onto their forum and be a donkey's posterior about the whole situation.

Thirdly, I am prepared, if necessary, to "eat" my words. You see, John, I have absolutely no problem with being wrong, and it does not hurt my pride to be proven incorrect. In that, I am a Freethinker ... because the biggest chain that can be put on thought is not Theism or Atheism, but the assumption that I know it all, and someone else doesn't.

Originally posted by jpholding

Hmm. Money where your mouth is

Eww! I don't know where that money's been!

I do no such thing. Show me I do. I find that the evidence dictates the conclusion -- to paraphrase an old English prof of mine who said this of Shakespeare, "If Moses (or whoever) did not write this, then someone exactly like him at the same time did."

Best I can do is show you where a reasonable person can come up with such a conclusion. However, for me it's a lot easier to walk through the process of showing you where (for instance) my doubt comes in about the traditional attributions.

Perhaps a one on one debate, eh, in the Gym? I could use the break from the sillier people here.

Sounds good, but we're probably going to have to make this a B-Ball Court discussion, or make it open-ended--no limit to the number of turns, and a fairly long turn-around time (at least for me--you have a lot more stuff ready to go on short notice ).

And we're going to have to make it for early August--I'm getting ready to leave for a couple of weeks, and won't have access. (Going out west to meet some of my "outlaw In-Laws.")

Justin

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

Eww! I don't know where that money's been!

Hey, Toby carried it here himself direct from the mint!

Sounds good, but we're probably going to have to make this a B-Ball Court discussion, or make it open-ended--no limit to the number of turns, and a fairly long turn-around time (at least for me--you have a lot more stuff ready to go on short notice ).

Fair enough. And early August is good; I'd have asked for some time anyway since I am busy for at least the next 2-3 weeks with a speaking trip and other stuff. Let me know when it's open for ya.