The author does not give any substance to the claim for such a literal interpretation of the final week. Another potential difficulty with the text under discussion is also other instances of literal interpretation, such as the 144,000 and the reference to Jews rather than to the Church as a whole. The author appears to believe that the references to Israel and the people of God in the Bible texts used refer literally only to the Jews rather than to the church or "faithful" in general, as is more commonly believed.

The common replacement of Israel with the conception of any faithful today is referred to as "replacement theology." The author is strongly against such an interpretation, and believes that the literal one should hold.

Finally, the most interesting as well as difficult aspect of this quite fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the fact that the author believes that both the rapture, the great tribulation and the second coming will occur very soon. As mentioned above, the "signs" of increasing wars, famine, and other indications mentioned in the Bible are used as grounds for this interpretation. The problem here is one that has been a part of Christianity since the time of Jesus. The disciples themselves believed that the events described would occur within their lifetime. Throughout the centuries since, various theologians and indeed self-appointed "prophets" have believed and declared the same thing, only to be shamed by the lack...

The author appears to be quite selective of which portions of the Bible should be interpreted literally. The Kingdom of God is for example assumed to be literal, as is the reference to Israel as the "people of God." However, assuming that all the utterances in the Bible should be taken to heart as literal would then also mean that the monsters, animals, and people described throughout Revelation should be interpreted in this way.
Although some could hold that this is indeed the case, surely an examination of historicity as related to Daniel's prophesy should provide a different indication. Furthermore, many doctrines and events in the Bible are no longer regarded as literal, such as the interpretation of "and eye for an eye" or Christ's command to cut off one's hand if it leads to sinful actions. Only the most fundamentalist and literal of interpretations would take this literally.

The author appears quite convinced of the claims made in the piece. There is no acknowledgement that other interpretations could also be valid, which is a common trait of fundamentalist views. Instead of giving such disproportionate attention to an attempt at working out the time of "the end," Christians should perhaps concern themselves with more relevant issues, such as cultivating the purity of Christ in their own words and actions.