[On June 9th]I'm pretty sure, though, that I did not claim that the Rapture would happen June 8 of this year. I'm pretty sure I said that it was one of two apparently very strong possibilities. But thanks to charlie d for his concern. Now, it would seem that September 27 or so would be the most likely time for the Rapture. Assuming my assumptions are correct.
There are several errors (no offense) in your reasoning. First, Jesus did not say 'No man knows or will know the day or the hour' - what He said was true when He said it, but it does not necessarily follow that it must be true until He returns. Second, Jesus is very precise in saying 'day' and 'hour' - note that He does not include 'month' or 'year'; thus, someone might know within a few days (perhaps calendrical questions and variances would prevent them from 'knowing' the exact day)...
I don't get too much into 'conspiracy theories', other than the one about the Government being extremely guilty in the Waco tragedy, and the one which says that there is a worldwide conspiracy to establish a global government under the control of a European leader who will be the Antichrist. Other than that, I'm as non-flaky as can be (in regard to conspiracy theories).
If it proves not to be the case, I would simply conclude that I was wrong. Actually, it would not be unless the Rapture did not occur within the first 2 months of 2004 that I would begin to doubt the general time frame for the Rapture that I believe is in several ways indicated...
They [UFOs] are either 'apparitions' (having no physical reality whatsoever), or they are physical manifestations of demonic powers. Angels physically manifested in the Bible, and they are seen to have swords, chariots, etcetera, so it is quite possible, from my understanding, that demons (who are fallen angels) might manifest in a deceptive form, as UFOs (they themselves being the 'aliens', and their ships being some manipulation of physical/spiritual reality).
I would note that I have claimed that God has 'spoken' to me directly only three or four times 'via dreams', and that only one of those involved 'knowledge of the specifics of future events'.
Duck-billed platypus. Mammal, or reptile? Or transitional form between a crocodile and a duck?
The dream I am referring to was one I had on January 23, 1993, and which was in two parts. The title of this thread was the answer God the Father gave me when I asked Him when the 'End' (the Rapture) would be... Possibly (not to "prophesy"), the Rapture would occur on June 8, 2003 A.D... It might mean that Saddam is kicked out of Iraq in June; it might mean that he attacks Israel in June; it might mean that the Rapture occurs in June... Something to keep in mind, at least until June 8.
From what I believe I understand about the Bible and history and current events, and from what I believe God has directly shown me, I believe that King Juan Carlos is the Antichrist, though it is possible that he is not. Personally, it seems to me like 99.99% certain that he is, but I wouldn't state it as a fact, nor as a 'prophecy'.
September 27, 2003 (or September 26 or September 28, depending on whose particular calendar one consults) - The Feast of Trumpets for 2003. But I want to try to make it clear for those whose discernment is cloudy or clouded that I am not 'PREDICTING' anything. It's just an educated guess as to a likely time for the Rapture.
By the way, your argument regarding all the failed prophecies regarding the time of the Rapture would be equivalent to those prior to the Wright Brothers who presented all the failed attempts at human flight as proof that human flight would never occur. Guess how that turned out.
[Replying to 'why should we say goddidit if we don't have an explanation?']Thats what I think should be done, this is why sciences like archaeology thrives, they don't say "we don't know yet" just because they can't find a natural explanation for a particular system
I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.
Lastly, God simply made man in His image, and He has a beard. I'm not sure what a beard signifies, but I cannot think of any evolutionary explanation for why human females would find men with beards to be more attractive
[After being told lots of Christians accept evolution as God's method of creation]
A million people could very well be wrong. Hundreds of millions of people claim that Islam is true, does that prove it true?
Darwin's evolution says that the earth and everything on it was created through random mutation and natural selection.
[Let's go back to the golden age of spirit theories of disease and sacrificing virgins to volcanoes!]
The IDers are quite correct, naturalism adds nothing to science, makes no specific predictions, generates no theories, contributes nothing to method. It is so devoid of scientific content that it doesn't even make sense to call it a 'science-stopper.' Its simply irrelevant. It does serve well for what I call an 'intellectual cudgel.' We can use it to browbeat recalcitrant religionists over the head with.