Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> I did not mean to upset anybody here.  Maybe we should
simply  not chat about this topic.

I am not upset.  I don't mean to insult anyone but I like
to have specific issues addressed to a conclusion and don't
like to take a 
snip here and a pluck there.
 

> > that it is
> > about 7 literal years when you try to PROVE them
> > Scripturally you have at best only a tenuous
relationship
> > that is truly "in the
> > eye of the beholder."
> 
> To say seven years is based entirely upon a questionable
interpretation
> of Daniel 9.   Check it out.  That would be a good
thought to discuss.

I base this upon the "time, times and 1/2 a time"
time=years and this reference is given twice in succesion
=> 7 years and the 1260
day given twice as 7 years.

 
> There would not be any postribers is postrib was so
plainly wrong as you may seem to think it is.

The number of people who believe or disbelieve a thing
carries no weight with me.
 
> That is highly interpretative.  

Again I am not trying to be flip but anyone who uses or
details anything that is based on symbolism has to admit
that there hypothesis is almost entirely interpretive.

> Give me explicit verses for this.

I will.  
 
> One mans revelation is another man's heresy.  It is not 
> conclusive.  That is all I am saying.

If you are saying that these things cannot be proven beyond
your or anyone elses ability to raise some shadow of a
doubt or supply a "possible" even likely aternate
interpretation, I would only say that very little in
existance meets this standard.

I talk to people all the time who say things like "You
can't show me where it is wrong for me to smoke." for
instance and they throw out that they don't buy that
"destroy the Temple" stuff (although that certainly does
apply) and I say that the Bible says that we are not to
obey the lust of the flesh.  Now, someone who doesn't smoke
and never has is not going to "see" this.  People who smoke
do.  I always ask them "Are you looking for the Scripture
that says 'John Brown, don't you smoke those Camels
any more you sinner' 'cause you aint gonna find it.  If you
know that smoking is a lust of the flesh and you are in
bondage to it then this verse refers to you."  Know what? 
Some will drop there head slightly in thought and say I
think I see what you mean and others will think for a
momant and say "Well when I am hungry I lust after food, so
are you trying to tell me that that it is a sin to eat?" 
The point is let's try to draw the natural, logical,
Biblically 
supported conclusions from this exercise.

I would also like to state again that although you may know
the prevalent schools of though, it is wrong of you to
think that just because I have drawn the same conclusion I
have done so based on the same evidence.

With that out of the way and no strong objections, shall we
begin 
with a "brief" overview of our respective positions and
proceed for the Glory of Christ and the edification of the
Body?

If it please the group, I will defer to you Bro. Blume and
would only suggest that this be kept to "statements"
without rebuttals to 
merely establish a frame work within to gage our respective
"camps" of thought.

> Are you a pastor, brother?  

No, why?

Timothy Litteral
472 Grant St.
Marion Ohio 43302
trlitteral@usa.net
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral