Thanks for the link. Here is the "logic" that he used to arrive at his conclusion:
Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock
All of the conclusions that he boldly declares "MUST" be the case follow from his private and peculiar interpretation of a single verse which states that the beasts of Daniel 7 "had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." The absurdity of his conclusion is immediately evident when we look at what happened when the stone struck the feet of the Image in Daniel 2:
Originally Posted by Ken Raggio
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. The SCRIPTURE directly contradicts his primary assertion in which he said:
In the end of Nebuchadnezzar's imagery, ONLY the IRON AND CLAY FEET were crushed by a rock, symbolizing JESUS CHRIST at Armageddon. The first three empires had already passed from the scene. In Daniel 2, the Word of God declares that ALL THE KINGDOMS represented by the Image were destroyed by the Stone cut without hands, and then confirms this fact by listing them all.
Ken Raggio's interpretation of these passages is a hermeneutical abomination. He built his entire futurist interpretation on an erroneous understanding of a single verse that directly contradicts the plain text of Holy Scripture. And then he went on to amplify his egregious error by repeating over and over again that his conclusion MUST MUST MUST follow, that he had PROVED IT and that there was no other possibility.
If this were an isolated case, then perhaps we could say that futurism was a legitimate alternative to understanding Biblical Eschatology. But no, this is not an isolated case. Errors like those of Ken Raggio are the fundamental characteristic of all futurism.
Thanks again for posting this Cheow. It really should help folks understand why the futurist system can not be accepted as a Biblical alternative.