Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.

[claninja]

And I was never talking about that. That's why we get nowhere in most of our discussions. Oftentimes, we're not even talking about the same thing.

Well thats what I was talking to Davidpt about. So why would you chime in, change it something else and then continue to be confused? That’s absurd lol.

I’m talking about the chronology of the visions as written by John, prior to interpreting them.

So what? You do that, too. Whatever. We all have a framework for how we understand scripture as a whole. There's nothing wrong with that. We should have a framework that we use to help prevent interpreting any given verse or passage in a way that contradicts any other verse or passage. That's a wise approach to interpreting scripture.

So what? So… My entire argument/discussion has been about understanding the chronology of the visions PRIOR to interpreting them through a theological lens.

Prior to interpreting the theological meaning of revelation 6-11 along with outside scriptures, does revelation 8:2 naturally come after 8:1 chronologically, or is 8:2 a new recapitulation? If it’s a recapitulation, how is that determined from the internal context alone.

Same with revelation 19-20. PRIOR to interpreting the theological meaning of revelation 20:1-10, does revelation 20 continue chronologically after 19, or is chapter 20 a new recapitulation. If revelation 20 is a new recapitulation, how is that determined from the internal context alone?

Spoken like a true premillennialist. Except you're not a premillennilalist. Explain to me what your understanding is of Revelation 20:1-6, especially in relation to Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. What is your understanding of the thousand years? That it all chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19? Without you actually explaining how you interpret these passages, I can't understand why you're saying the things that you're saying.

You needing my theological interpretation of revelation 19-20 is completely irrelevant to my argument.

Who cares? Why does this matter? What matters is the chronology intended by the author and interpreting it in a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture.

Who cares? I care. that’s why I started the conversation with @Davidpt

The conversation you chimed into, and then got confused about when attempting to steer it beyond what I’m talking about. The conversation where I tried to explain with example based on your previous posts, to which you said you misspoke, thus creating more confusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well thats what I was talking to Davidpt about. So why would you chime in, change it something else and then continue to be confused? That’s absurd lol.

What's absurd is your lack of communication skills. What is the point of talking about the order in which the text is written, as if there's anyone who can't see that? What matters is the chronological order of the events written about in the book. So, that's what I'm talking about since that is something worth actually talking about.

I’m talking about the chronology of the visions as written by John, prior to interpreting them.

As if any explanation needs to be given for that?

So what? So… My entire argument/discussion has been about understanding the chronology of the visions PRIOR to interpreting them through a theological lens.

Anyone can see the order in which the visions are written. What is the point of talking about that?

 

[claninja]

What's absurd is your lack of communication skills.

I can absolutely admit that I’m not the clearest sometimes.

But You literally misspoke in another thread which lead to more confusion here.

And you literally keep trying to argue about interpretation, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m talking about prior to interpretation

So pull the plank out of your eye, brother, instead of hurling insults about me personally.

As if any explanation needs to be given for that?
Anyone can see the order in which the visions are written. What is the point of talking about that?

i was curious as to why Davidpt recapitulates 8:2. Since we don’t agree on interpretation, I was curious as to how or if he determined recapitulation internally prior to interpretation. @Davidpt seemed to have no problem understanding that question when he supplied the argument - its recapitulation due to the internal parallel “wrath” accounts 6:17 and 11:18.

Additionally @grafted branch commented on my post, seemingly having no problem understanding what I was talking about out.

So I’m not really sure what your difficulty is?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I can absolutely admit that I’m not the clearest sometimes.

But You literally misspoke in another thread which lead to more confusion here.

I clarified what I meant, so what's the problem? You shouldn't still be confused.

And you literally keep trying to argue about interpretation, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m talking about prior to interpretation

What a colossal waste of time it is trying to discuss anything with you. We should just not attempt to do so. It never goes anywhere.

So pull the plank out of your eye, brother, instead of hurling insults about me personally.

I misspoke one time and now I'm on your level where you are unclear a majority of the time? Okay.

i was curious as to why Davidpt recapitulates 8:2. Since we don’t agree on interpretation, I was curious as to how or if he determined recapitulation internally prior to interpretation. @Davidpt seemed to have no problem understanding that question when he supplied the argument - its recapitulation due to the internal parallel “wrath” accounts 6:17 and 11:18.

Right, so it's based on his interpretations of those verses. That's what I was trying to talk about, but you say it has nothing to do with interpretation. Whatever. This is such a waste of time.

Additionally @grafted branch commented on my post, seemingly having no problem understanding what I was talking about out.

So I’m not really sure what your difficulty is?

I think he tends to just agree with whatever you say because he's a preterist like you.

 

[claninja]

I clarified what I meant, so what's the problem? You shouldn't still be confused.

Just giving you an example.

What a colossal waste of time it is trying to discuss anything with you. We should just not attempt to do so. It never goes anywhere.

and yet you always chime in on my conversations with others. Honestly, you do it to yourself.

Right, so it's based on his interpretations of those verses. That's what I was trying to talk about, but you say it has nothing to do with interpretation. Whatever. This is such a waste of time.

Incorrect. He was giving me his reasoning prior to applying premil:

So my method is not to begin with premil and force Revelation into it. Rather, I first compare parallel passages, repeated phrases, and shared judgment scenes within Revelation itself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

and yet you always chime in on my conversations with others. Honestly, you do it to yourself.

You're absolutely right. Notice I wasn't blaming you for me wasting my time trying to discuss things with you. That's on me. I need to just stop doing that since we both know our discussions rarely go anywhere.

Incorrect. He was giving me his reasoning prior to applying premil:

I was correct. He's going by how he interprets other parts of Revelation in order to determine what he thinks is parallel or not. This is just yet another example of you and I not being on the same page. Let's just not waste our time anymore.

 

[grafted branch]

I think he tends to just agree with whatever you say because he's a preterist like you.

I wasn’t just agree with @claninja. I understood what he was talking about, I gave an opinion on what I thought might be possible way of determining what is chronological and what is recapping. We weren’t in agreement on anything other than what might be possible but needs further analysis.

Sometimes it’s ok to just have a conversation without pointing out everything that we disagree about. It doesn’t always have to be a debate.