Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: topcat54
"This means that the burden of proof is on the futurist to prove that Old Testament prophetic passages related to Egypt are (1) yet to be fulfilled in some cataclysmic end-time scenario, (2) in a post-rapture event (the seven-year Great Tribulation), or (3) in the dispensational version of the “millennium” of Revelation 20."

That's like saying that any letter must fit into (1) the first three letters of the alphabet, (2) the 20th letter of the alphabet, or (3) the last 3 letters of the alphabet. What about all the other's?

Why does it have to be a "cataclysmic end-time scenario"? Why couldn't it just be something that happens?

Why does it have to be post-rapture? Is this your hang up on the word "imminent" again? No where does scripture say that prophecies can't be fulfilled before the rapture occurs.

You can have prophecies being fulfilled before the rapture, after the rapture and before the Great Tribulation, during the Great Tribulation, after the Great Tribulation, during the second coming, during the millennium, during the man's final revolt after the millennium.

If scripture says it's going to happen, the burden of proof is on you, to prove it's either already happened or is clearly placed in a certain time frame by the context.

And wild assumptions that the word "imminent" means nothing can happen before the second coming, are simply not sufficient.

11 posted on 02/16/2011 8:33:07 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DannyTN
Why does it have to be a "cataclysmic end-time scenario"? Why couldn't it just be something that happens?

Are you denying that cataclysm is the hallmark of futurism? Billions killed, including millions of unbelieving Jews living the middle east? A literal river of blood running though the middle of Israel? It's in all the popular futurist books and TV programs.

These folks make a killing off this stuff (pardon the pun).

Why does it have to be post-rapture? Is this your hang up on the word "imminent" again? No where does scripture say that prophecies can't be fulfilled before the rapture occurs.

That’s not my argument. Take it up with the classic dispensationalists who denied any prophetic fulfillment prior to the secret rapture.

Of course none of this is in the Bible, but that fact seems to be lost on futurists.

And wild assumptions that the word "imminent" means nothing can happen before the second coming, are simply not sufficient.

Since it all fabrication, like Humpty Dumpty, futurists can make “imminent” mean anything they wish.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

14 posted on 02/16/2011 9:41:56 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN
And wild assumptions that the word "imminent" means nothing can happen before the second coming, are simply not sufficient.

Can you give us a definition of “imminent” that is a) biblical, and b) meets all the qualifications of the futurist end-times scenario, including specific prophecies being literally fulfilled before the “rapture?”

26 posted on 02/17/2011 11:24:44 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson