Is this the hardest thing that I've tried to do? It feels that way. I've tried some really hard things before. Maybe I'm just getting old and rigid. "Set in my ways" or whatever.

The "second" (first for me) series on Revelation was a breeze. Even the Daniel series wasn't too hard to take. I could maintain my perspective, 2nd cent. BCE text (for the most part), the fourth kingdom was Greece not Rome, etc., etc. A IV E and all that, full preterist in the case of Daniel.

But the "third" (second for me) series on Revelation is harder. I think because my side doesn't offer any set answers. At least as far as I know. So my side has a void on how exactly to understand the "little apocalypses" in the Gospels. I'll have to dig out Sproul's book and try again to make sense of it. But I'm not sure how much I should agree with him either. I think we're probably in the middle somewhere, defying pigeon-holing, as usual. I have Olson's book ... don't like it. I tried Paul Thigpen's book again today ... he just doesn't understand the issues. It makes me wonder whether he's ever spent five minutes actually listening to anyone who thinks this way.

Oh, well, I gotta do my homework or else I can't open my mouth tomorrow morning. And I want to be able to open my mouth, probably.