David Wilkerson Prediction

[TK]

I just read this article abotu david Wilderson's prediction. Thoughts?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=91097

TK

[RND]

I just read this article abotu david Wilderson's prediction. Thoughts?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=91097

TK

Wilkerson's prediction's are nothing new. The one thing that always gets me is why does God always get the blame?

[Mellontes]

I just read this article abotu david Wilderson's prediction. Thoughts?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=91097

TK

Here are some quotes from that article:

"predicts an imminent 'earth-shattering calamity'"
"An earth-shattering calamity is about to happen"
"I do not know when these things will come to pass, but I know it is not far off"

It's real funny. He believes the judgment of God is about to fall upon New York city and major cities throughout America.

Why is it funny?
Because "imminency" here means a short time, but "imminency" in dispensationalism means "nothing else is to happen, but it can be far away - it is the next event."
For Mr. Wilkerson, it is an "about to" occurrence. But when Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James (from the first century) use "about to" to express the end-times it is COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Wilkerson says It is not far off, and nor did any of the apostles of Jesus Christ. But we are to now understand these SAME terms as being near to us, but not near to the first century apostles. Too funny.

If they won't believe inspiration when the same kind of "imminence" language was used, then they definitely shouldn't believe Wilkerson either. Why? Because it must be at least 2,000 years from occurring. That's what they said about the first century imminence, right?

All in all, way too funny...

[Allyn]

Aren't these 2001 predictions? I have an article on my website that dates those predictions as being given in 2001. I put the article up over 2 years ago.

[Paidion]

Why is it funny?
Because "imminency" here means a short time, but "imminency" in dispensationalism means "nothing else is to happen, but it can be far away - it is the next event."
For Mr. Wilkerson, it is an "about to" occurrence. But when Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James (from the first century) use "about to" to express the end-times it is COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Wilkerson says It is not far off, and nor did any of the apostles of Jesus Christ. But we are to now understand these SAME terms as being near to us, but not near to the first century apostles. Too funny.

If they won't believe inspiration when the same kind of "imminence" language was used, then they definitely shouldn't believe Wilkerson either. Why? Because it must be at least 2,000 years from occurring. That's what they said about the first century imminence, right?

Not so funny. It was common in the first century to use the Greek word μελλω(about to) to refer to events "soon" to occur. This "soon" sometimes materialized in a few hours, sometimes in a few days, sometimes in a few months and sometimes in a few years ---- and sometimes in a few millenia. For example, the following passages speak of events which were "about to" occur, but they haven't happened yet!

For the son of man is about to (μελλω) come in the glory of his Father, with the angels, and then he will repay everyone according to his deeds. Matthew 16:27


It seems obvious to most of us that Jesus has not yet come with the angels to repay everyone according to his deeds. Nothing like that happened in 70 A.D. That great judgment is yet to come.

He has fixed a day in which he is about to(μελλω) judge the inhabited earth in righteousness…Acts 7:31

This fixed day also seems to be the judgment of that great future day ---- though I suppose one could maintain that "the inhabited earth" should be "the inhabited land", that is the land of the Jews ---- in particular Jerusalem --- though I can't imagine what "in righteousness" would mean if that were the case.

[Mellontes]

Why is it funny?
Because "imminency" here means a short time, but "imminency" in dispensationalism means "nothing else is to happen, but it can be far away - it is the next event."
For Mr. Wilkerson, it is an "about to" occurrence. But when Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James (from the first century) use "about to" to express the end-times it is COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Wilkerson says It is not far off, and nor did any of the apostles of Jesus Christ. But we are to now understand these SAME terms as being near to us, but not near to the first century apostles. Too funny.

If they won't believe inspiration when the same kind of "imminence" language was used, then they definitely shouldn't believe Wilkerson either. Why? Because it must be at least 2,000 years from occurring. That's what they said about the first century imminence, right?

Not so funny. It was common in the first century to use the Greek word μελλω(about to) to refer to events "soon" to occur. This "soon" sometimes materialized in a few hours, sometimes in a few days, sometimes in a few months and sometimes in a few years ---- and sometimes in a few millenia. For example, the following passages speak of events which were "about to" occur, but they haven't happened yet!

For the son of man is about to (μελλω) come in the glory of his Father, with the angels, and then he will repay everyone according to his deeds. Matthew 16:27


It seems obvious to most of us that Jesus has not yet come with the angels to repay everyone according to his deeds. Nothing like that happened in 70 A.D. That great judgment is yet to come.

He has fixed a day in which he is about to(μελλω) judge the inhabited earth in righteousness…Acts 7:31

This fixed day also seems to be the judgment of that great future day ---- though I suppose one could maintain that "the inhabited earth" should be "the inhabited land", that is the land of the Jews ---- in particular Jerusalem --- though I can't imagine what "in righteousness" would mean if that were the case.

That is the essential difference between you and me. You say "mello" does not mean soon and this you believe because it has not happenend yet. And the "it" refers to end-time events. Your "it" is also based on your physical theological nature. Whereas for me, it is the clear timing of Scripture that necessitates the soon occurrence of the end-time events. Therefore, our understanding of these end-time events necessitates a different nature than the one normally given...

[TK]

Aren't these 2001 predictions? I have an article on my website that dates those predictions as being given in 2001. I put the article up over 2 years ago.

hi allyn-

this one was dated 3/7/09. can you link the article you are referencing? just curious to compare them.

TK

[Allyn]

Aren't these 2001 predictions? I have an article on my website that dates those predictions as being given in 2001. I put the article up over 2 years ago.

hi allyn-

this one was dated 3/7/09. can you link the article you are referencing? just curious to compare them.

TK

Hi TK,

This is the article I was referring to. It has the wilkerson prediction in the fifth paragraph or so.
http://endtimesmadness.com/confusion.html

[TK]

thanks, Allyn. very interesting.

TK

[Allyn]

thanks, Allyn. very interesting.

TK

A thought I had along the lines of God's Judgement on people today is first how many people would God have to call His own in order to spare a city or a country. If Sodom had just ten God was willing to spare it. Second, since we are in an age of Grce does God deal with a NT people the same way He did OT people?