jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was watching the news today and they were talking about the earthquake in Chille and it reminded me of the whole eschatology thing, particulerly Mathew 24: 7.
Now I don't hold to a Premillenialist view point, I am more of a Partial Preterest, but I thought of a question for anyone who holds to this view.
As I understand it any view point that holds to a strict future fullment of Mathew 24, that is in all its detail, and beleives that these things are sighns of the times, than it seems to me that they might have a problem here of subjectivaly interpreting the things around as being the literal sighns of the times. I mean it seems to me that to be legitamate sighns they must be objective and they must be able to be perceived in the present for what they are.
There always have been and always will be these things mentioned in the text but if they are truly sighns than they must be qualitativly distinct from all the rest, but in what perceviable way are they? I mean they are not really important sighns if they are only understood in 20/20 hindsight, because there will be a plethora of sighns if you will then. But these are the ones mentioned and if they are taken to be the sighns of times than how will we know while they are happening? I hope this makes sense, and I am curious as to whay might be possible answers to my question.
Now I don't hold to a Premillenialist view point, I am more of a Partial Preterest, but I thought of a question for anyone who holds to this view.
As I understand it any view point that holds to a strict future fullment of Mathew 24, that is in all its detail, and beleives that these things are sighns of the times, than it seems to me that they might have a problem here of subjectivaly interpreting the things around as being the literal sighns of the times. I mean it seems to me that to be legitamate sighns they must be objective and they must be able to be perceived in the present for what they are.
There always have been and always will be these things mentioned in the text but if they are truly sighns than they must be qualitativly distinct from all the rest, but in what perceviable way are they? I mean they are not really important sighns if they are only understood in 20/20 hindsight, because there will be a plethora of sighns if you will then. But these are the ones mentioned and if they are taken to be the sighns of times than how will we know while they are happening? I hope this makes sense, and I am curious as to whay might be possible answers to my question.