The Time of the End - A Biblical Perspective.

I said were in them now....the beginnings....I said perhaps a 100 years as man may repent and God tarry a bit.
Yep.

The uncertainty is yours, not mine. Face it. Don't rag on me for it. I don't have that problem. Look at it. Look at it for what it is: uncertainty. Could be U. Might be W. Perhaps it's X. Maybe Y. If not now than 100 years from now is possible.


Look at it.
 
I don't know if the time is near...but it looks like the table is pretty much set.

It seems as if the completion of the beast system is about to be forced upon the world.
That is a one world government, one world currency and a one world religion.

Technology has all but arrived to fulfill this prophecy. (Rev 13)
Israel is a nation....and the prophecy fulfilling that have and are occurring.
The 3rd temple is moving onwards...the latest is the red heifers.

Currently I believe we are in the birthpangs of Matt 24 with the rapture of the church next...then we turn the pages to Rev 6

Then again it could all happen 100 years from now. But, as I said, the table is almost set.

From my perspective, Matthew 24 happened long ago. Revelation is definitely in progress. To me Israel and a future temple are unimportant and not fulfillment of any prophecies. In fact, there is no prophecy of a future temple. That is reading into the scriptures.
Matthew 24 was the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. No double fulfillment.
 
From my perspective, Matthew 24 happened long ago. Revelation is definitely in progress. To me Israel and a future temple are unimportant and not fulfillment of any prophecies. In fact, there is no prophecy of a future temple. That is reading into the scriptures.
Matthew 24 was the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. No double fulfillment.
So, what's next? Everything just go on?
 
So, what's next? Everything just go on?
Can you clarify that?

I ask because there is a lot more to the future than Matthew 24. I ask because 70 AD was not the first time (scripture's) prophecy was fulfilled, or the same time there was a silence in new revelation. After the OT prophets there was 400 years of silence. Jesus' entrance into creation fulfilled a PILE of OT prophecy. The same could be said of the exodus: long silence followed by fulfillment of prophetic promise. The difference between the exodus and the incarnation is that the OT scriptures themselves bore witness to the silence and the subsequent fulfillment, whereas the incarnation was witnessed by "new" scripture, revelation not accepted by all of those who considered themselves the "chosen" people (which turns out to be very informative to understanding the NT, what the NT says about our future).

When you say, "Everything just go on?" what are you asking?
 
Can you clarify that?

I ask because there is a lot more to the future than Matthew 24. I ask because 70 AD was not the first time (scripture's) prophecy was fulfilled, or the same time there was a silence in new revelation. After the OT prophets there was 400 years of silence. Jesus' entrance into creation fulfilled a PILE of OT prophecy. The same could be said of the exodus: long silence followed by fulfillment of prophetic promise. The difference between the exodus and the incarnation is that the OT scriptures themselves bore witness to the silence and the subsequent fulfillment, whereas the incarnation was witnessed by "new" scripture, revelation not accepted by all of those who considered themselves the "chosen" people (which turns out to be very informative to understanding the NT, what the NT says about our future).

When you say, "Everything just go on?" what are you asking?
But you forget....Revelation hasn't happened yet.
 
But you forget....
No, I do not.
Revelation hasn't happened yet.
Sure it has.

You forget: post hoc arguments are fallacious.
You forget: we're not to subjugate scripture to history; history is subject to scripture.

What you mean is "Revelation has not happened the way modern futurists say it will happen." If God said the events would happen soon then they happened son. They happened soon whether we understand how that is the case or not. We treat God's word as authoritative and believe it exactly as written. Appeals to "When..." and "How..." betray the acceptance, reliance, and trust in what is literally stated. There was a literal fulfillment simply because God said there was. It happened soon because the time was then at hand.


Do we believe God because He has been true to His word, or do we believe it because we hope He will be true to His word? He kept His word. I believe Him.


And, Crow, you did not answer my question. Clarify your inquiry, "So what's next? Everything just go on?" What do you think happens when all is said and done? Do you think time and history come to a halt and everything stops? Does everything end in your thinking with the new Jerusalem descending? Everything just comes to a halt?


Clarify your own inquiry.

Do it without shifting the onus onto others, telling them what they do and do not do.
 
No, I do not.

Sure it has.
I was looking for the hoove marks of the 4 horsemen...haven't seen them.

Bead is still fairly cheap...certainly not a day wages....
You forget: post hoc arguments are fallacious.
You forget: we're not to subjugate scripture to history; history is subject to scripture.

What you mean is "Revelation has not happened the way modern futurists say it will happen." If God said the events would happen soon then they happened son. They happened soon whether we understand how that is the case or not. We treat God's word as authoritative and believe it exactly as written. Appeals to "When..." and "How..." betray the acceptance, reliance, and trust in what is literally stated. There was a literal fulfillment simply because God said there was. It happened soon because the time was then at hand.
Soon?

To be honest there is nothing saying the soon has arrived.
Do we believe God because He has been true to His word, or do we believe it because we hope He will be true to His word? He kept His word. I believe Him.
Both.
And, Crow, you did not answer my question. Clarify your inquiry, "So what's next?
Several possibilities....as we enter into Matt 24...could be Gog and magog...could be Isaiah 17....could be the rapture.
Everything just go on?" What do you think happens when all is said and done?
You enter into "eternity".
Do you think time and history come to a halt and everything stops?
Nope. It will be interesting to see how time moves in the eternal dimension.
Does everything end in your thinking with the new Jerusalem descending? Everything just comes to a halt?
Well, at least we don't have to worry about Joe Biden shooting it down like a balloon.
Clarify your own inquiry.

Do it without shifting the onus onto others, telling them what they do and do not do.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for.


To be honest you continue to be a nay-sayer.

Have you heard this yet?
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

“To Him who sits on the throne
and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power
forever and ever!”
 
I tend to say it hasn't started as of yet.

No 4 horses have arrived yet.
The book of Revelation plainly states it is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bondservants, the things which must soon take place," and he said those "heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near," would be blessed.

By what authority do you now claim those events did not happen soon? By what authority do you now claim the time was not near? By what authority do you now claim the time is near, now in the 21st century, but it was not near when the book was written? If the time was near, and the events were soon going to happen then the four horses have arrived.

The typical response to what I just posted is to either call me names, tell me how ignorant or fleshly, or blind, or faithless, or lacking in comprehension, or some other off-topic ad hominem, or the response is to say those temporal markers apply only to the first three chapters of the book. To which my reply will be to point out the book both opens and closes with those exact same temporal markers. They indicate everything in between - unless otherwise stated in the book itself - was going to happen soon/quickly because the time was then at hand.




There are dozens of places where abuses of Revelation's text occur with modern futurists. For example, the Dispensationalist eschatology teaches and looks forward to a literal 1000-year reign of Jesus living here on earth in Jerusalem. The only place the 1000-year reign is mentioned in the entire Bible is Revelation 20 and if you get out your Bible right now and read chapter 20 you will see there is no mention of Jesus living on earth. None. His earthly physical presence is inferred by the Dispensationalist. It is read into the text eisegetically. It is added to the text. Just two chapters later, after reminding everyone he was coming soon because the time was at hand he added, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."

They add an earthly, physical reign to the book.

Maybe you don't do that particular addition. Maybe you're not Dispensationalist. My example is just an example, a very common one we've all read about (but few verify). So I ask you again, since the book explicitly states the events that are reported were soon going to occur because the time was near, how is it you say the events were not soon to occur and the time was not at hand? It's not up to me to prove God correct. It is up to you to prove what He explicitly, plainly stated is not what He meant. Otherwise, just read the text as stated and believe it exactly as written.





Again, I remind everyone that Daniel was told to seal up the prophecies until the time of the end because the time of the end was not yet at hand, but John was told to leave the prophecies unsealed because the time was near.... and then Jesus commanded NO additions or subtractions be made to his revelation.
 
I was looking for the hoove marks of the 4 horsemen...haven't seen them.
That is because they happened long before you and I were born.
No 4 horses have arrived yet.
Hmmm... Are you saying Jesus has not conquered (white horse). Are you saying people did not kill each other during the war destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD? The historical record shows they did in fact kill one another. Jewish Zealots killed fellow Jews. Romans killed Jews. Egyptians killed Jews. Conscripts and mercenaries from many countries assembled to kill Jews. The Jews fought back and killed many Gentiles (red horse). Are you saying there was no famine? The Romans laid siege to the city for four years. They ran out of food. Josephus tells an account of children being eaten. A quart of grain cost a day's wages, and then things got worse because there was eventually no grain (black horse). Are you saying there was no death, that no one died during Zealot overthrow of the city, the subsequent Roman siege, the famine and war (ashen horse). The four horses did come, but you and I were not there to see them.

Christians should not be looking to the future for things that have already happened, especially since the book of Revelation tells the reader the events described therein were going to happen soon because the time was near and some of the events had already happened (like the birth and victory of the Son) and were happening at that time (like the persecution of the Church).
 
The book of Revelation plainly states it is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bondservants, the things which must soon take place," and he said those "heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near," would be blessed.

By what authority do you now claim those events did not happen soon?
A thousand years is as a day....
By what authority do you now claim the time was not near?
Depends on "near"....and the fact the events of Revelation haven't happened yet.
By what authority do you now claim the time is near, now in the 21st century,

As pointed out to you before....daily events and technology...show a distinct possibility that we are about to enter into the book of Revelation.
but it was not near when the book was written? If the time was near, and the events were soon going to happen then the four horses have arrived.
2,000 yers is but a drop in the bucket when one considers the length of eternity.
The typical response to what I just posted is to either call me names, tell me how ignorant or fleshly, or blind, or faithless, or lacking in comprehension, or some other off-topic ad hominem,

Have I done that?
or the response is to say those temporal markers apply only to the first three chapters of the book. To which my reply will be to point out the book both opens and closes with those exact same temporal markers. They indicate everything in between - unless otherwise stated in the book itself - was going to happen soon/quickly because the time was then at hand.
As you see I'm not buying the "near" argument.
There are dozens of places where abuses of Revelation's text occur with modern futurists. For example, the Dispensationalist eschatology teaches and looks forward to a literal 1000-year reign of Jesus living here on earth in Jerusalem.
The bible presents the 1,000 year reign as literal....just as it presents the marriage supper of the lamb and Rev 13.
The only place the 1000-year reign is mentioned in the entire Bible is Revelation 20 and if you get out your Bible right now and read chapter 20 you will see there is no mention of Jesus living on earth. None. His earthly physical presence is inferred by the Dispensationalist. It is read into the text eisegetically. It is added to the text. Just two chapters later, after reminding everyone he was coming soon because the time was at hand he added, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."
Rev 19 shows one of the returns of Christ...(first return in the sky...rapture")
They add an earthly, physical reign to the book.

Maybe you don't do that particular addition. Maybe you're not Dispensationalist. My example is just an example, a very common one we've all read about (but few verify). So I ask you again, since the book explicitly states the events that are reported were soon going to occur because the time was near, how is it you say the events were not soon to occur and the time was not at hand? It's not up to me to prove God correct. It is up to you to prove what He explicitly, plainly stated is not what He meant. Otherwise, just read the text as stated and believe it exactly as written.
I've already told you my position on "soon".
Again, I remind everyone that Daniel was told to seal up the prophecies until the time of the end because the time of the end was not yet at hand, but John was told to leave the prophecies unsealed because the time was near.... and then Jesus commanded NO additions or subtractions be made to his revelation.
I've made no additions nor subtractions.

Your misinterpretation of "near" or "soon" tells me you've done a lot of subtraction as the events of Revelation have not happened as of yet.
 
That is because they happened long before you and I were born.

Where and when did the 4 horses arrive?
Hmmm... Are you saying Jesus has not conquered (white horse).
The Rev 6 white horse isn't Jesus.
Are you saying people did not kill each other during the war destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD? The historical record shows they did in fact kill one another. Jewish Zealots killed fellow Jews. Romans killed Jews. Egyptians killed Jews. Conscripts and mercenaries from many countries assembled to kill Jews. The Jews fought back and killed many Gentiles (red horse). Are you saying there was no famine? The Romans laid siege to the city for four years. They ran out of food. Josephus tells an account of children being eaten. A quart of grain cost a day's wages, and then things got worse because there was eventually no grain (black horse). Are you saying there was no death, that no one died during Zealot overthrow of the city, the subsequent Roman siege, the famine and war (ashen horse). The four horses did come, but you and I were not there to see them.
When you read about the horses the bible speaks of events that are world wide...not Jerusalem wide.
For example we read....take away peace from the earth...And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth,........as I have said repeatedly this has not happened.
Christians should not be looking to the future for things that have already happened, especially since the book of Revelation tells the reader the events described therein were going to happen soon because the time was near and some of the events had already happened (like the birth and victory of the Son) and were happening at that time (like the persecution of the Church).
Revelations was writen after Jerusalem was conquered. John on the island of Patmos wasn't writing of past events.

When did the following event occur? Rev 8:8 Then the second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
 
A thousand years is as a day....

Depends on "near"....and the fact the events of Revelation haven't happened yet.
The word "near" is not used in 2 Peter 3:8.

Do not add to scripture. Don't add to Peter's epistle things he's not actually stating. The fact is Peter is quoting from Psalm 90. He is quoting from Psalm 90 to address the expectations of his first century readers, not readers in the 21st century. Peter plainly said he and his readers were living in the last days. He'd appealed in his first letter to Christ having been revealed "...in these last times" (1 Pet. 1:20). He said "these last times," not "those last times coming in the future." The "last times" existed when he wrote his two epistles! His readers were wondering when the promises of God going to come.

Look at what he states in the letter from which you just quoted,

2 Peter 3:3-16
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter appealed to Psalm 90 to say God wasn't reneging on his promises but that they were soon going to occur because the thousands of years they'd already waited were like a day for Him and He is faithful. The "you" and the "we" are the original readers, not people who weren't living when the letters were written. Notice he appeals to the letters from Paul they'd also read. Paul once wrote,

1 Corinthians 10:11-12
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

The ends of the ages had fallen on them, on those living in the New Testament era. It was not the beginning of the ages, but its ends! The things that had been written in the past were written for them, those upon whom the ends of the ages had come. It's quite common for modern futurists to appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 to defend a non-literal reading of Revelation's temporal markers, especially those written at the beginning and the end of the revelation. If they can explain away the "soon" "quickly," and "near" or redefine them so they mean something different than what those words normally, ordinarily mean then they can make Revelation say any number of things (like the mark is a computer chip). The facts are 2 Peter 3:8 does not contain the word "near," and IF the word "near" is studied elsewhere in the Bible it will be learned God uses that word with 100% consistency - there are no exceptions to the rule - the word "near" always means near in either space or time, geographic proximity or temporal proximity. Always. So... when Peter writes about time from God's perspective, he is not in any way arguing an exception to the rule. There are no exceptions to the rule for God's use of the word "near."

I encourage you to do that study. Look up the word "near" in scripture. It's used about 30 times in the New Testament, so it doesn't take long to examine their uses. You'll note there are a few examples where conditional statements are made, as in "When X happens then Y is near," but otherwise the word is an unqualified nearness in either space or time and it never means "2000 or more years from now."

Watch and listen for those who try to make 2 Peter 3:8 dismiss what God explicitly said in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10. Scripture never contradicts scripture and Revelation is not to be added to or subtracted from.
 
The word "near" is not used in 2 Peter 3:8.

Do not add to scripture. Don't add to Peter's epistle things he's not actually stating. The fact is Peter is quoting from Psalm 90. He is quoting from Psalm 90 to address the expectations of his first century readers, not readers in the 21st century. Peter plainly said he and his readers were living in the last days. He'd appealed in his first letter to Christ having been revealed "...in these last times" (1 Pet. 1:20). He said "these last times," not "those last times coming in the future." The "last times" existed when he wrote his two epistles! His readers were wondering when the promises of God going to come.

Look at what he states in the letter from which you just quoted,

2 Peter 3:3-16
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter appealed to Psalm 90 to say God wasn't reneging on his promises but that they were soon going to occur because the thousands of years they'd already waited were like a day for Him and He is faithful. The "you" and the "we" are the original readers, not people who weren't living when the letters were written. Notice he appeals to the letters from Paul they'd also read. Paul once wrote,

1 Corinthians 10:11-12
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

The ends of the ages had fallen on them, on those living in the New Testament era. It was not the beginning of the ages, but its ends! The things that had been written in the past were written for them, those upon whom the ends of the ages had come. It's quite common for modern futurists to appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 to defend a non-literal reading of Revelation's temporal markers, especially those written at the beginning and the end of the revelation. If they can explain away the "soon" "quickly," and "near" or redefine them so they mean something different than what those words normally, ordinarily mean then they can make Revelation say any number of things (like the mark is a computer chip). The facts are 2 Peter 3:8 does not contain the word "near," and IF the word "near" is studied elsewhere in the Bible it will be learned God uses that word with 100% consistency - there are no exceptions to the rule - the word "near" always means near in either space or time, geographic proximity or temporal proximity. Always. So... when Peter writes about time from God's perspective, he is not in any way arguing an exception to the rule. There are no exceptions to the rule for God's use of the word "near."

I encourage you to do that study. Look up the word "near" in scripture. It's used about 30 times in the New Testament, so it doesn't take long to examine their uses. You'll note there are a few examples where conditional statements are made, as in "When X happens then Y is near," but otherwise the word is an unqualified nearness in either space or time and it never means "2000 or more years from now."

Watch and listen for those who try to make 2 Peter 3:8 dismiss what God explicitly said in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10. Scripture never contradicts scripture and Revelation is not to be added to or subtracted from.
Let me ask you again....
WHERE AND WHEN HAVE THE WORLD WIDE EVENTS HAPPENED THAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION SPEAKS OF?????
 
Where and when did the 4 horses arrive?
I just answered that question. Why am I being asked a question I have already answered. What is it about those answers that is not understood?

And why aren't you answering my questions? Are we going to have one of those non-discussions where you get to ask all of the questions and I must answer them only in a manner agreeable to you while I should have no expectation any question I ask will ever be answered? If so, then count me out of that non-conversation.

Please answer my questions. By what authority do you deny what scripture plainly, explicitly stated to say it is not true and did not happen the way scripture states? Those are not rhetorically asked questions.
 
The Rev 6 white horse isn't Jesus.
Revelation 6:1-2
Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come." I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

How many people in scripture are given a crown? How many of those to whom crowns are given ride a white horse? How many of those crown-wearing horse-riding people are said to have conquered? Do I need to walk you through the scriptures that identify what is being described here? I am happy to do just that, but I trust, hope, and expect you already know Jesus is the crown-wearing, white horse-riding conqueror found in scripture.

Revelation 19:11
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called faithful and true, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.

How many judges who judge in righteousness are there in your Bible? How many white horse-riding people in the Bible are called "faithful and true" and judge and wage war? Or do you not think scripture should be used to understand scripture? Of course not; you appealed to 2 Peter 3:8 to dismiss Revelation 1:3's "near". So why is it scripture is not used to define the white horsed rider of Revelation 6:2?


Who do you think is riding the white horse of Revelation 6:1-2?
 
I just answered that question. Why am I being asked a question I have already answered. What is it about those answers that is not understood?

What you speak of hasn't happened as Rev spellls out....you also have been shown that "near" isn't what you say it is....as PROVEN by the fact what has been mentioned in REV hasn't happened.
And why aren't you answering my questions? Are we going to have one of those non-discussions where you get to ask all of the questions and I must answer them only in a manner agreeable to you while I should have no expectation any question I ask will ever be answered? If so, then count me out of that non-conversation.

Please answer my questions. By what authority do you deny what scripture plainly, explicitly stated to say it is not true and did not happen the way scripture states? Those are not rhetorically asked questions.
If you can't produce something that shows I'm incorrect and a timeline of what you said happened then I'll have move on to a more serious debater.

All you have done so far is nay-say.
 
How many people in scripture are given a crown? How many of those to whom crowns are given ride a white horse? How many of those crown-wearing horse-riding people are said to have conquered? Do I need to walk you through the scriptures that identify what is being described here? I am happy to do just that, but I trust, hope, and expect you already know Jesus is the crown-wearing, white horse-riding conqueror found in scripture.
Rev 6 is the anti-christ imitating Jesus...
 
What you speak of hasn't happened as Rev spellls out....
Revelation says it has. It is not "What you speak of." It is what scripture plainly states. Don't make this about me. I showed you scripture, not personal opinion.
you also have been shown that "near" isn't what you say it is.... as PROVEN by the fact what has been mentioned in REV hasn't happened.
It has happened.

No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has.

You have got to have a better argument than that. Revelation 1:3 plainly states the events described were near, or at hand and you have been asked by what authority it is you deny those words. Saying "It hasn't yet happened," is not an argument proving scripture wrong. Let's be clear her: you're not trying to prove scripture correct. You are trying to prove scripture incorrect, and your reading of scripture correct. The scripture plainly states, "near," and you say, "Nunh unh, no it wasn't. It was not near. It wasn't near to them; it is near to us." and in so doing deny the normal meaning of the word to the original audience but applying it to us two thousand years later. If the word "near" means near for us then why doesn't it mean near to them?

You have not shown near isn't what it says. 2 Peter 3:8 does not mention the word near!

Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.
If you can't produce something that shows I'm incorrect and a timeline of what you said happened then I'll have move on to a more serious debater.
Already done.
All you have done so far is nay-say.
Posts prove otherwise.



So because you've driven yourself into a cul de sac and are making this personal, I am going to move on. Read what is stated. Use scripture to render scripture, not the evening news.
 
Back
Top