I’ll most naturally change my communication when I objectively see that you are being honest in this discussion by actually reading the background details instead of making me waste my time with questions on issues that I have already covered on my blog (and that can be electronically closely ascertained)! How’s that for a "deal"?!

You may believe that your 'EGW and nothing else' approach entitles you to your defaultly dismissive stance, however that stance in its is rejected by both the Bible and EGW herself.

I am uncomfortable building a prophetic interpretation on a prophecy John was forbidden to record.

I can, and do, readily understand that. In fact I was of the same opinion before a particular, recent watershed moment. And still, even after what I have been able to exegetically understand from that prophetic series, I know and understand, even better than before that if God’s people were/are faithful in endeavoring to accomplish Jesus Christ’s exhaustively comprehensive Gospel, indeed how He wants and expects it to be done, they would indeed never need to know the details of this “testing” prophecy, because in these concrete ‘righteous actions’ in their lives, they would have been walking in the light that God wanted them to, thus easily passing this test. So even if one understands these exegetical details in this prophecy, if they still refuse to truly accomplish Christ’s Gospel, they’ll still not pass this test.

That “watershed” moment, was, after having done exegetical studies on other “recorded” prophecies, particularly the one on the SOP ‘Mark of the Beast/Unrolling of the Scroll”, which dealt with the statements in Rev. 10. So many recorded key points in that prophecy were so sounded exegetically identified/explained that the relation of the Seven Thunders and the Prophecies of Ezekiel was then a self-evident given. The ending mention of the ‘eating of the scroll” (Rev 10:9-11) which almost verbatim echoed the action that launched Ezekiel into his prophetic ministry (Ezek 2:8-10) sealed this exegetical association.

So as seen in the deliberate, sequential placement of this prophecy in my blog’s listing, it was the end result of several other underlying studies and not a vice-versa shot in the dark. That is why I am emphasizing the study of these prior posts first.

How can you concretely and confidently say your understanding of Ezekiel's prophecies definitely reveals the details John was forbidden to record, details we must know and believe to pass the end time test?

That is a question that requires the restatement of all of the background studies that had led to this noticed association. So you’ll have to read these studies which are posted on my blog. And, in regards to understanding that the test involves truly ful-fill-ing Christ’s exhaustively comprehensive Gospel, cf. John 7:17. (You evidently are not aware of this, but such substantively “redundant” as this questions are simple being caused by your manifest choice not to read any of these posted studies, because their background/context info addresses these issues. Honestly-speaking, as this might help, your line of questioning resembles a person at the airport who missed their transatlantic flight yet is pestering the ticket agents about why it is not return to get him so that he won’t be late to his scheduled meeting. Seems to me that in your continued questioning, still with the chosen ignorance of these previous posts, you are hoping for an “impeachable” out-of-context (thus “proof-text” type) answer here in order to have some sort of summarily dismissive “gotcha” moment here!?? The fact of the matter is, I know the foundational facts which support my conclusion, so if you also really want to know, you’ll have to, actually, just read them.

Please work on your communication skills.

As much as you may self-justifying want to believe it, I do not have ‘“communication skills” problems’ I am just utterly annoyed by, in this pointed case, your senseless refusal to read background info from my blog. So call me human, but when I am so annoyed, I use the, indeed, appropriate expressions. Seems like Jesus also did not mince words with people who knowingly insisted on being “blind”, “moronic” and “foolish” (Matt 23). So, once again, as “tone deaf” as you seem to be, when you exercise your reading skill in regards to the related material on my blog post, (i.e., I have not seen a visit from (ca.?) Cotton_ _ _ _ , A_ to my blog since ca. 9-minute, 2 page+ 1 graphic view, visit, January 10, 2011 11:05:32.), then I’ll consider you to be sincere and truthful and my attitude towards you will natural change. Otherwise this is all just a waste of my quite valuable time.

AHEM! To go back to Jeff's study methods...

I find reasonable reason to disregard much of what he teaches. I recently studied the 2520 year prophecy with a few friends and I will post here parts of our discussions:

I wish to propose that this period does not exist at all. I have three points on this and will post them seperately. I draw heavily from the appendix of Bro. Uriah Smith's work 'Daniel and Revelation'

1. The Language of Lev 26

One of the ares we agreed to look into more was the way in which 'seven times' is rendered in the Hebrew. Uriah Smith did a good job on this one and will not reinvent the wheel byt echoing his thoughts here. I will however summarize his view that the words used in Lev 26 differ significantly with what is later used in Daniel. In Lev the rendition is a single Hebrew word (an adverb) which simply means sevenfold, while in Daniel the phrase rendered 'seven times' in Dan 4 is two word with the word 'time' being a noun. The same is observed in Dan 7 and 12 to refer to 'time, times and dividing of time' where a noun is used.

I read Jeff quoted somewhere to the effect that some Hebrew experts have shown that Lev 26 could well mean 'seven times' in the sense of seven periods of time rather than seven degrees more.

I think Uriah Smith's review of the context, which I will address in the next post, can clarify that. But for now I can disagree with this based on my own study of the phrase in
Hebrew. It is not one in which I would really require much external assistance for I can check for myself and determine, and on this one I think Bro. Smith was quite correct

In the previous post I explored the reason why Lev 26 should be read as 'seven degrees' rather than 'seven periods of time' as Bro. Jeff suggests. I based this on the fact of parts of speech. Now I wish to refer to Bro. Smith's key reason for finding this latter interpretation improper, and it has to do with a little word often overlooked: 'more'.
See, when the Lord was iving these warnings to His people, He often said something like 'I will punish you seven times more...'

Study the chapter well. First in verses 1- 23 God gives instructions and the blessings that would follow obedience to them.

Then in vs 14- 17 He highlights plagues and terror that would befall his people if they disobeyed. They would also be slain before their enemies among other things. These things
would come upon them if they did not obey to prove them and bring them back to the path of obedience.

But IF THEY STILL DID NOT OBEY after these punishments, vs 18- 22 records a higher degree of punishments that would come upon them. It is clear, therefore, that this would only happen if they failed to be reproved by the earlier punishments. It is in verse 18 that we find the first reference to 'seven times more'.

Clearly, the correct rendition, according to the context, should be that they would be punished seven degrees more than the previous punishments. The context does not support the idea of 'seven periods of time more'. But if it did, then note that we would have to keep adding the 7 times together as long as the word 'more' appears. No wonder Uriah Smith obeserved that if Lev 26 refers to time periods then it would not be 2520 years at all, but 2520*4 years!

But let us continue:
If the punishments in vs 18- 22 failed to bring them to their senses, verse 23, 24 say that seven times more punishment would come upon then- another higher degree of punishment. The specifics are outlined as in other previous cases until verse 26.

Verse 27 onwards says that if all this would still not accomplish the desired goal then they would have one last punishment which would involve them being driven from thier land
into captivity, and the land would enjoy her sabbaths. To this final punshment there is no 'seven times' attached.

Hence the 'seven times' in this chapter refer to punishments of increasing magnitude which indeed began as early as the days
of the judges just after the death of Joshua.

We therefore fall into the trap of applying a period to a punishment that does ot specify it. But, as Smith insists, if we have to count at all, we should remember that these were several punishments, one coming only after the previous has failed to do its work. We should therefore be consistent and add upp all the mentiones of 'seven times' and not treat them as a single punishment, because indeed they are not.

But the Lord did mention just how long the land would lie in desolation, and hence how long this final punishment would last. This was later confirmed by the record of the departure into captivity in 2 Chron 36, Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the liberation from captivity and Daniel's prayer for restoration.