Prophecy re-thinking?

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

Timothy Litteral wrote:
 
> > 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.

Well let us start at it then.  I have been waiting for this.  To briefly
bring up points to INTRODUCE the topic is not uncommon even in books.

It sets the reasons why we are to discuss what we are to discuss.  You need
to know why I wish to discuss this issue.  And Vice versa.

> > > 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.

three and one half is only mentioned in Revelation without
the mention of the 7.  Only Daniel mentions both.  SO, whether
you realize it or not, your ideas are based upon a thought
of interpretation from Daniel 9.  No other passage
could be interpreted as such.

> > 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.

Me neither, but I am saying that there would not be other
opinions if everything was cut and dried.  And regarldess of
anyone's opinion, it is NOT cut and dried either way.

> > 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.

And that is exactly what I admitted the very thing.  Check again.

> > 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.

Exactly my point.  So none of us can be quick to say 
"Revelation involves a seven year period of Israelite dealing only"
Period.


> 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.

If you never heard anybody speak on th etopic, and never read a book
of the topic and came up with these thoughts totally on your
own I would agree.

> 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.

-- 
---
In Christ,  
Michael F. Blume   
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/writings/mike.htm