Then Weinland took several minutes to explain what happened at ideaCity. The audience during his presentation was generally respectful during his presentation, except for a couple of people who smirked at his British Israelism. He did not reiterate his objections to what Tom Harpur said. It was the 4th following presenter who stunned him. Ron compared it to having a close friend killed next to him and then hearing that person mocked a few days later. Laura equated Ron's experience with one of Paul's.
Ron was still so stunned three days later that he didn't know what he was saying in last Saturday's sermon. He was thankful that he could edit the sermon, but everyone got the gist about the time, times and half-a-time being one seventh.
Some also got the gist about the significance of the presentation being 7 days later from the end of half-a-time, even though it was 6 days later. Let's review what he said, and what he edited out (the part in italics below).
And all of this is significant as God does things in a very orderly manner. It's no coincidence that even seven days later I gave the kind of speech that God had me deliver. God is indeed setting the stage for far greater things to follow.
For me his explanation for what he said last week fell flat. Ron should have explained exactly what he had to edit in order to correct it for those who got that gist-- I could have had a bit of respect for that. As it is, those who found his deleted statements significant are still under that impression, unless they make careful comparisons between the two versions of the sermon. Or unless they read my blog -- and what are the odds of either of these happening?"Observer", what do you think of his explanation?
Updated: I guess that Ron is rubbing off on me, got a couple of commenters confused due to the similar handles. I'd meant to ask the question of another commenter.
"Weinland Observer", what is your reaction to Ron's explanation?