Search results

Maybe not yet. Currently I'm going back and forth between different scenarios until I'm fully convinced which scenario seems more likely, assuming I even get to that point. One of those scenarios being what I just posted in a post of mine before this one. Yet it seems to me, in order for that...

In Daniel 9:27 it says this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. There is the following to...

Let's look at it like this, for example. Being hypothetical here of course. Christ's baptism happened but His death and resurrection didn't. Per this scenario is His baptism alone enough to save sinners? Obviously not. Therefore, though both events are significant, Christ's baptism would be...

I don't understand your point here? It seems a moot point to me. We have to keep in mind that the two proposed timelines, there is a 3 year difference between when they begin. That doesn't change anything about when Luke 3:1-3 is meaning. If one timeline starts in 457 BC and the other one 3...

Exactly! That's my point. The 42 month reign of the beast is connected with Christ's bodily return in the end of this age. And Scripture shows, thus proves, when satan is loosed, this 42 month reign of the beast isn't just beginning, it has already been entirely fulfilled earlier. It would...

I guess it hinges on where we are in the timeline of events 483 years later. Are we at Jesus' baptism? Or are we at Palm Sunday? If the former, I am still inclined to believe that it is Christ meant in the middle of the week in Daniel 9:27 in that case. If the latter, it's not even disputable...

What an argument. I guess that means you win then, that what you just said here settles it.

My thinking now is the following, maybe the gap is between the 69th and 70th week after all, though lately I have been thinking maybe it's in the middle of the week instead? After all, there is such a thing, that even though one changed their position to something else, initially when they held...

In order for this to logically work, it has to mean that 483 years earlier something significant occurred, thus marking the beginning of the 70 weeks. What significant thing do you have occurring exactly 483 years earlier, thus marking the start of the 70 weeks, then exactly 483 years later we...

Even if I changed my view and agreed with yours instead, I still wouldn't change my mind about this part and what that is involving---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate I would...

Not per Premil will he be, not even during the millennium. And here is one valid reason why. Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more...

That's not the way I might interpret that verse, meaning Revelation 18:2. I tend to take it to mean that Babylon the great is initially something good, but no longer good because now it has become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and...

Spot on! Something I agree with you about then. In my mind the way they are shortened is like such. An X amount of days is already allotted for great tribulation. No more and no less. Because if these things were allowed to continue indefinitely it would ultimately result in this before it was...

What are you meaning when you say---If you have the great multitude of Gentiles in Revelation 7:9 being saved during the 42 months of the Revelation 13 beast? I'm not a Pretribber Dispy that thinks a rapture precedes the 42 month reign and that it then equaling those left behind becoming saved...

And if you had connected the dots correctly in this case, you could not have helped but notice that the only tribulation mentioned in the text leading up to verse 29 is the one mentioned in verse 21. Therefore, in this context, the tribulation of those days can only be meaning the one involving...

Except it can't fit both since there is zero way anyone could possibly be misunderstanding whom the following are not meaning. Revelation 7:13 ¶And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir...

The way Daniel 12:1 reads to me is like such. It is at the end of this period involving trouble that can't be equaled when Michael initially stands up, thus it is the worst time of trouble any saint on this planet has ever experienced since the beginning of mankind. And when Michael stands up it...

Let's look at it like the following. A) Revelation 11:1-2, for example, not to be taken in a literal sense. Therefore, one should treat Revelation 20 and the thousand years in the same manner, thus be consistent at least. Maybe you have a valid point here since I do not take Revelation 11:1-2...

Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that. No I'm not. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm not a dispy Pretribber who thinks a temple gets built in Jerusalem and how they apply that the way they do. I for sure...

Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that. No I'm not. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm not a dispy Pretribber who thinks a temple gets built in Jerusalem and how they apply that the way they do. I for sure...