You asked a question and then ignored my followup. No, the discussion regarding the meaning of the 7 times is not finished.
You pretended to answer this one, but your answer was a lie. If John meant 2,520 days that does not equal 3.5 years. If he had said 3.5 years, he would have been lying. So, he specified that 3.5 times equals less than 3.5 years. By John's explanation of "times" we should expect that 7 times would likewise be less than 7 years. We would certainly have NO reason to assume that 7 times would mean more than 7 years by a consideration of Revelation 12. Please answer the question I asked, since I have agreed that "times" does not equal years.
Does the use of "times" instead of "years" mean more than years or less than years?
C'mon, it is a simple question. I know why you don't answer it directly, but your ego is getting in the way of truth. I hope saki2fifty is following your lack of direct response. You said earlier that is "must mean something beyond" years. But we have an example in Revelation 12 that proves your assumption is not correct. In that case, it means something less than years.
There is another unanswered question in this thread. If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?
Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
John identifies Jesus to seven 1st Century congregations in three different ways, one of which is identifying himself as having sovereignty OVER the kings of the earth. According to the angel that brought John this message from Jesus himself, Jesus was under the impression he was ruling over the earth in the 1st Century AD. Was John mistaken or are you and your leaders in Brooklyn mistaken?
I encourage saki2fifty and any other lurkers to note carefully whether the response to this post is candid, or stealthy, or nonexistent.