The issue, TC, is BIBLICAL ruminations....are they permitted or are they not.
I have no problem with those who speculate WHEN they are absolutely, adamantly clear that they are simply speculating AND within the framework of an accepted biblical, eschatological model. That is something that the "88 Reasons" book could NEVER have done because there is no biblical model that permits the setting of a date. I rejected it before I ever looked at it simply because of the title.
If someone speculates about a red cow, and they can do it biblically by pointing out the biblical basis of the red cow and place it in the context of the rebuilt temple, and they are clear that it is pure conjecture, but interesting conjecture, then I have no problem with it. And it simply cannot be made an item of faith. This is an area that requires shepherdly oversight, but the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. If one prophet speaks and something comes to another, then let the 2nd address the church. Friend sharpens the countenance of a friend as iron sharpens iron.
Since this is an internet forum where opinions are a dime a dozen, anything goes. From space aliens to computer chip implants.
They can be neither proved nor disproved. (I guess you could prove space aliens exist with some effort.)
If folks want to have fun with speculating about red cows, go right ahead. The problem is when this speculation is offered as fact and used to "prove" the truth and accuracy of some particular form of eschatology. That's when it becomes dangerous to the folks in the pew.
Plus it's a little disconcerting for those of us who are not "true believers" in the eschatology du jour when we are made out to be the odd balls for not following the party line.
That is something that the "88 Reasons" book could NEVER have done because there is no biblical model that permits the setting of a date.
But all those guys back in the '70s and '80s were so sure. Even some big wigs like Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. They wrote books and preached sermons about how they expected to be raptured any moment based on all the signs.
But what you seem to be confirming is that, in reality, the "signs" are not really signs of anything. Otherwise folks like Whisenant and Lindsey would be correct to predict and rapture and return of Jesus with some accuracy. These guys had the time texts in Matthew 24 as backup. Their model was certainly biblically based, as they interpreted the Bible.
Jesus gave a whole bunch on definite signs in Matthew 24 that futurists take as being in our future about things what would fall on "this generation". Now, you can either spiritualize "this generation" into nothingness, or you can take it to mean the actual generation alive when the events occur. I believe it was an actual generation, that that generation lived in the 1st century. I believe they witnessed the signs, including the destruction of the temple, within their lifetime.
But if the signs are still in the future, and Jesus will return within the lifetime of that generation, then there must be a generation that will be able to witness the signs and make a definite prediction about Jesus' actual return. After all, Jesus said to watch for the signs and make some real decisions (like flee to the mountains). If the signs don't mean anything, then what good are they.
Where did Lindsey and Co. go wrong? Did they misunderstand the Bible, or misread the signs?
For sure. Strongly agree.
Dismissed such books out-of-hand before-hand, too.
And, certainly right about Biblically congruent speculations within logical Biblical models. Many things are not clear. Some things are.
The screwy pontifications about things that are clear is still amazing to me but thankfully, not everyone is like me nor like my 'logic.'