To: topcat54
Not at all. Without referencing Scofield’s Notes, you show us from the Bible where "the sign of the son of man" must "literally" mean the second coming.I just asked you a simple question and never said anything about the second coming. That is what you inferred from it. Is the question too hard for you??? Why am I not surprised. Take a stand for once. Take pride in your 70 AD interpretation. Don't run from it.
505 posted on
11/09/2007 11:02:53 AM PST by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: Uncle Chip
I just asked you a simple question and never said anything about the second coming. I'm sorry. If I must repeat myself the answer is "yes". Otherwise I be suffering from the same dysfunction that says Matt 24 and Luke 21 are speaking of two entirely different events.
518 posted on
11/09/2007 11:49:57 AM PST by
topcat54
("Dispensationalism is a disease ... as contagious as polio.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson