Replies

I agree that Missler is not into gloom and doom. I've listened to him very simply comment on what a passage says.

He is extremely cautious about saying what it means and uses more than ample amounts of "could be's" and "might be's."

There were articles in the paper last week about Jewish extremists who wish to blow up the Dome of the Rock.

From a futurist perspective, that's relevant when you consider the man of sin sitting in the temple of God.

You might not have a futurist perspective, but that doesn't mean a futurist has gone off the deep end when he says, "this should make us think about the necessity of the rebuilding of the temple."

I agree that Missler is not into gloom and doom. I've listened to him very simply comment on what a passage says.

Hardly.

The Bible does, however, describe in surprising detail the scenario of events that will be climaxed by the Second Coming of Christ. Most of these are directly linked to the seven-year period known as the "Seventieth Week of Daniel."(4) In fact, this unique period is the most documented period in the Bible. Many of us are convinced that it involves events that occur after the Rapture of the Church. It is because of the ostensible preparations for these events, which are appearing on our horizon, that we can recognize the approach of the end of the church age and the threshold of these post-rapture events.
We seem to be plunging into a period of time about which the Bible says more than any other period of time in history--including the time when Jesus walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee and climbed the mountains of Judea. Some of the major themes emerging before us include:
It is exciting, indeed, to see these things begin to take shape on our immediate horizon and to come to grips with the impending reality of Christ's return. But there is a difference between "being ready" and setting dates. One we are strongly and repeatedly admonished to do; the other is expressly prohibited. Further more, there is another danger. I call it "rapture-itis." There is a tragic fatalism that can immobilize the Christian body from truly "occupying" until He comes (Luke 19:13). -- Chuck Missler

Missler clearly falls into the category of "date-suggester", leaving himself just enough wiggle room for deniable plausibility, but still offering enough zip to still sell books and tapes to the naive.

Here's a five-point bonus question. Can someone explain Missler's logic when he says:

The Prince That Shall Come The Coming World Leader--commonly known as the Antichrist --has 33 titles in the Old Testament and 13 in the New Testament. One of these, The Prince That Shall Come, comes from Daniel 9:26-27 in which the people of the Prince that shall come would destroy the city and the sanctuary. The fulfillment occurred in history when the Roman legions under Titus Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.10
This reflexive reference to the Romans in Daniel 9:26 is one of several reasons why most Bible scholars view the future Prince that shall come as a Roman, or European.

How can "the people of the Prince that shall come" have existed thousands of years before "the Prince that shall come"?