Hi all,

 

I first saw the Ken Peters video many years ago having ordered it (like many others back then) on VHS from the Prophecy Club and watched it many times. At that time I hung on every word and was giving him the benefit of any doubt as to the truth of his claims.

 

However, over the years there have been a few things about his claims that have become a problem for me and cause me to begin to doubt whether he really saw the tribulation or was he just a good actor and making up what at the time would sound feasible.

 

The first suspicious thing about it is that he claimed that the dream happened many years before he was telling it but that he was only allowed to share it when he did some time later. My problem there is that there is no way for us to measure whether anything he claims to have seen, being as yet future when he dreamed it, was accurate when those things had not yet been invented when he supposedly had the dream however they were now commonplace. Had he described some of these things before they were common and then we all watched as these things became common, there would be veracity added to his story as time went on. But the opposite is also true. If things that he described were common at the time he was telling it (supposedly not yet invented when he had the dream but now everywhere) it would be easy to claim that he saw these things years earlier in his dream, before they were invented and he could say that these things would be common at the time of the tribulation. And, at that point there really is no way to know whether he is telling the truth or just making it up, see? But if enough time slips by and things that he described as being part of the tribulation begin to be replaced with newer versions or simply become obsolete altogether, what are we to make of his story then?

 

Examples would be like how he describes personal computers as big boxes similar to TVs but not TVs that many homes seemed to have and he describes them exactly as computers were at the time of his telling it but that since then have completely been replaced with the newer flat screens and even iPads and similar smaller device like iPods which he never apparetly saw but certainly there are no more big boxes or old big computer monitors in homes anymore.

 

Another example is that he said he saw these Humvee vehicles everywhere in the cities being used by the military style cops and again at the time these vehicles were still in production and looking promising as what the military would indeed use. So a guesser would easily make that assumption that these would be the vehicle of choice for the world cop etc. Only problem is that these vehicles proved to be somewhat of a mistake and way too expensive to produce and now today they are hardly seen anymore having been discontinued. So what does this do to his story there?

 

One other thing is he described the Antichrist as an extremely good looking man etc. If it turns out that BO is it, that would be a huge miss too because he is not good looking and one wonders how someone could see him and forget to mention that he is black.

 

On the other hand if it turns out to be Prince Charles or even William neither one is good looking the way he described it. Unfortunately William seems to be looking more and more like Charles and less like Diana with each passing year.

 

 Any thoughts?