[fso301]

I'm sorry, but where would that be?

Throughout this thread.

My point is that the linked article stresses the need for a literal interpretation of scripture to understand that Dan 9:26 has been fulfilled. The author then proceeded to explain in detail why without once addressing Jerusalem experiencing a flood as described in the verse (Dan 9:26).

The thread creator (TaraP) then interpreted flood to mean an illuminating light event. When pressed on the subject, the thread creator then interpreted flood as meaning a "flood of knowledge".

Such interpretations may be ok but they are not what one would call literal interpretations and the author stated a literal interpretation was required.

The fatal flaw in this illuminating/knowledge literal interpretation of the word flood is that Zech 14:4-8 says there will be no light and that waters will flow from the mount of Olives to the east and west.

Therefore, in order to not have Dan 9:26 not contradict Zech 14:4-8, a literal interpretation of the word flood in Dan 9:26 should mean a water event and Dan 9:26 can not have been fulfilled as the author claims.

[Genoa]

I was asking you to reveal your own eschatalogical point of view. If you choose not to, that's fine. (I'm classic premillennial, uncommitted concerning the timing of the rapture and the nature of the tribulation.)

As far as "with a flood" is concerned, it is well within the normal (or literal) method of interpeting prophecy for such an expression to be considered metaphorically. Prophetic passages in both testaments abound with such imagery. Total literalism would not be a suitable means of interpreting scripture in any case. Where to interpret figuratively and where not to is, of course, an open question.