Posted by Rational [trw] on November 01, 1999 at 12:21:31 {2gTL9dbN6kYgCUWv3.1cm0FN8UzOHE}:
In Reply to: ******Discussion summaries posted by Friend on November 01, 1999 at 11:21:38:
Friend,
You said:
Please note that the “serious mistake” does not address when the application begins but rather the issue of after which its application would be in error. Please stop mudding the water.Honestly, Friend, it's your obfuscation that is 'muddying the water.' (And perhaps the original ambiguously worded writing.) Trying to draw a distinction between when the parable begins to be fulfilled and when it is fulfilled is simply obfuscation. The writer made no such distinction; the quote deals with the fulfillment of the parable in its entirety, from beginning to end. If you disagree, show where the writer indicated otherwise.
The salient parts of the quote are:
It would be a serious mistake to reason that ... the parable could not apply until later on.... We are living in that time, and it is fast running out.The writer felt it would be a serious mistake to apply the parable (without regard to some part of it, e.g., the beginning) to any time later than the present 'time in which we are living' and which was "fast running out". If (as you seem to contend), within this definition it would NOT have been a mistake to apply the parable to the judgment at Armageddon, then why the reference to "time ... fast running out"? By Armageddon, time WOULD HAVE RUN OUT, is that not true? Surely the writer realized this?
Rational