[VoiceInWilderness]

I didn't read the whole paper but most of it. Basically Nigel says that W. Lee is wrong because his teaching says that the rapture cannot come until some events come 1st, and this contradicts the teaching of imminence. Yes, this contradicts the teaching of imminence as defined in the paper as well as the attitude of M.E. Barber, but I do not think this ultra imminence teaching is in the Bible. It is an extrapolation of verses in the Bible beyond what they necessarily mean.

The Lord said, You don't know the day or hr, and we don't and neither claimed Lee (ignoring the 2070 and 1997 stuff). This does not require that we don't know the day after some future-prophesied events have occurred.

Furthermore W. Lee does not know the day of the overcomers' rapture even after the 7-year convenant begins. It may be hard to fix a beginning day for the 7-yr covenant. Also, the exact days for the 1st half of Israel's last wk are how many days? 365*3.5 or 360*3.5 or 365*7-1260?

The 1997 prediction was just a mistake on W. Lee's part. I had never heard of it though I was devoted to LRC since 1975.

The 2070 prediction has some ground but the start date is wrong. Why 70 AD as a start date instead of the Lord's crucifixion, which is when Israel according to the flesh were broken off of the olive tree? Even if 2 days here means 2K yrs, which I agree with, it doesn't tell you the year. Hos 6 says it will be AFTER 2 days, and DURING the 3rd day. So this means it will be at least 2K yrs after the crucifix, and implies that it would be near the beginning of the 3rd day, but that's as specific as it gets.

I don't think the alternative explanation for the woman and manchild makes sense. The remnant of her seed has the testimony of Jesus, so how can she be unbelieving Jews?

I think W.Lee's teachings need to be discussed honestly out on the table to see what is true and what is false.

Yours in Christ,
Steve Miller