Sigh! People of the way:
I don't follow any men either, and I've already stated a bunch that I'm not following Estep, but if you actually took the time to listen to the sermon, you would find it is nothing at all like the thing George posted.
Also, I'm not sure when the tapes George reviewed were done, but given they were on audio cassette, I can only assume they are pretty old. As far as I can tell this Daniel's 70 weeks was done in 2006.
Plus, I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment, it seems a bit over critical, and the context cannot be verified. One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there. Not to say George is lying or misquoting, but the point is I never recommended him nor the submission tapes. I ONLY wanted to discuss the CONTENT of the 70 week time line theory.
And for goodness sake, I've made it quite clear I'm not here to talk about Estep, but rather the theory he put forward. If one of the favored pastors put it forward, you'd all gobble it up, or at least give it a listen and a fair analysis.
Instead its only been met which character assasination from ONE viewpoint (plus George's co-reviewer) of something that you don't know if Estep has changed since then.
How come nobody has even commented on the actual theory? *with the exception of CKG.
Someone posted on here a video of a black pastor talking about the Jews. I pointed out he was a charismatic, but that was shushed because he had a love for the Jews.
Since I believe that Ruckman is flat wrong about the gap theory, should I dismiss everything he's ever said as heretical?
Or if a teacher said something 20 years ago that was wrong, but 20 years later is saying something right, am I to cut off my nose to spite my face and miss out on something good?
George - WHOA!!! its going to take me a while to read, and then address everything you wrote there (like, an entire day!)
But honestly, I'm getting quite disheartened that everyone is focusing on Estep, when the ONLY reason his name is even here, is because he's the first place I heard of the Daniel's 70 week theory, and I used his sermon as a reference to discuss the content of the sermon. And even if he was in error about one thing years ago, that is quite unrelated to the 70 weeks time line now, does that automatically disqualify the theory?
Arg!!! I don't really care about Estep, I just want to know if the facts he presents are true, because they sure made a lot of sense to me, regardless of WHO said it.
I guess you are all missing that.
I've presented some very good points about the theory, which nobody really addressed, except CKG. instead everyone is labeling me a man-follower, or that I recommend hereticks, when I've done nothing of the sort, and frankly it hurts and is wasting time.
I just want to discuss the 70 weeks. I regret using his name in the thread title, perhaps had I not referenced an audio file I came across that clearly explains the 70 week position, and only posted a 10,000 word post to explain it out myself, we could have avoided this snafu.
Like, if I quoted a TIME magazine article saying something that was Biblically true, would the truth of it be disqualified because TIME is a media outlet for the NWO?
George, I just skimmed your post, and I'll have to respond to it tomorrow.
I'm forced to work tomorrow, and will be starting an hour earlier, but I should have the time to complete a response.
I'm going to have to start this thread over again if I want any answers on Daniel's 70 weeks.
As discouraged as I am about not being able to explain myself clear enough here in this forum, I am still appreciative of all your time in attempting to converse with me.
Please be patient, as I am trying to be as well.
In Christ,
~Brian.
|