RandyPNW
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,811
- 861
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Then to be consistent you should not use the designation, "7 years" with respect to the endtime period of Antichristian rule.I have not, and do not, use the phrase 3.5 years, nor 3 1/2 years because that term is not found in the bible.
Jesus is not speaking in Eze 39.21-29. Nowhere does Jesus say that he returns after a 7 year period. You should not be saying it.In Ezekiel 39:21-29, Jesus is speaking in the text having returned to this earth, after the 7 years of Ezekiel 39:9.
Now you're referring to a 1260 days period that you say doesn't equate to 3.5 years. Isn't that a bit contradictory?In Revelation 19, Jesus will have likewise returned to this earth.
So the 7 years of Ezekiel 39:9 correspond to the 7 years of Revelation 12:6 (1260 days) + Revelation 12:14 (time, times, half time).
You said you're not going to use the 3.5 years. Your table has been delegitimized by referring to something that you said isn't there. The 7 years of Ezekiel takes place *after* the end of the conflagration, which I believe represents the return of Christ. It is not therefore to be associated with any imaginary period of 7 years *during the Reign of Antichrist.*The 7 years of Ezekiel 39:9, and the 1260 days of Revelation 12:6, and the time, times, half time of Revelation 12:14 are on the table below.
Upvote
0