When you're single, some people will try to encourage you with ideas like "this is where God has you right now." But just because you're currently single doesn't mean that God wants you there. This idea is a little strange. What if I'm currently homeless, or unemployed, or being abused? Are those things happening because "God wants me there"? Often people teach this sort of idea when they talk about singleness.

You don't have to be "content" with being single. in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul actually says that if you're not content with being single, then maybe you should get married.

You also mention that singleness is "an opportunity to do things and go places that married people cannot do or go" and cite those verses from 1 Corinthians. Paul basically says here that an unmarried person is devoted to the Lord and not distracted by the needs of his spouse. This is then interpreted by some to mean that a person can do "more ministry" as a single. I don't think that's what Paul says here. I mean, if that's the case, why are all the pastors and church elders typically married? Did they make a mistake? Is marriage getting in the way of their ministry? What Paul says here, I believe, is that if you aren’t distracted by the desire for marriage, then maybe you have the gift of singleness.

In English, "distracting" has a negative connotation. But it seems more like Paul is making the simple observation that marriage can put more demands on your attention than singleness.

"It may be that God is keeping you back from marriage because you have made an idol of it." This is something else you hear a lot, but I don't really buy it. Simply having the strong desire for marriage does not mean you're "idolizing" it.

It's OK to have a strong, passionate desire for marriage. Nowhere does the Bible condemn this. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul talks about single people who "burn with passion" and he urges these people to marry. He does not accuse them of idolatry. He does not scold them over how shortsighted they are. He even says that it's better to marry than to "burn with passion."

Marriage is a genuinely good thing. There's certainly something special and unique about it that, understandably, lots of people want to experience. It makes sense, doesn't it? You mention Adam and Eve. This is actually an important observation to make when it comes to this issue. Marriage was part of God's original plan, in Paradise, when the world was perfect. Isn't that interesting? Even when the world was perfect, God said it wasn't good for man to be alone, so He made a partner for him.

Marriage is the most intimate and special way that any other human will ever choose you and love you. It's understandable why people want that, and why it hurts when it doesn't work out. There's definitely something unique about marriage isn't there? Yes, your family loves you, but it's not that kind of love. Yes, your friends love you, but it's not that kind of love. And yes, Jesus loves you……but it's not that kind of love. Sex is just one part of that. Sex is the most intimate way anyone will every physically love you and connect with you. It's understandable that people want that. And it's not necessarily "idolatry."

Interestingly enough, a lot of research (almost all secular) indicates that married people are happier, have more and better sex, make more money, live longer and impact society more. It’s a societal foundation, apparently. Well, then!

Yes, marriage has its challenges. But there’s enjoyable and good things about marriage, too. Enjoyable and good things that, if you’re single, you simply miss out on. That’s certainly hard, and should be acknowledged.

And yes, Jesus was single. But did Jesus ever have the desire for marriage/sex/children? I don't know. The Bible doesn't say. And Jesus certainly had more purity and self-control than any puny human ever will.

..The author's twisting of God's Word

The word "Twisting " is thrown around a lot and has no meaning unless you prove it. This could be repeated back to you.

The end of verse 26 and the beginning of verse 27 is where you find the gap

The gap is not in the text. You see it there because of your presuppositions. If did not have a need for a gap you would not see it. The idea of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel is not consistent with a literal interpretation of the text. The most straightforward reading of Daniel 9 suggests a continuous narrative rather than the insertion of an arbitrary gap that could extend indefinitely. It's important to grasp the purpose of this prophecy: it communicates God’s timing in His redemptive plan. Introducing a gap without defined parameters is not supported by the text and does not facilitate a clear understanding. It is only done to support your view.

Furthermore, simply inserting a gap does not resolve all the challenges faced by dispensationalists. They must also include a "rapture" to account for the removal of what God established during the "gap." The tendency to insert a gap and a rapture into the narrative stems from personal assumptions rather than the intended meaning of Scripture.

Daniel together with Revelation and get the full picture

You are assuming no-one has done this. I'm nearly 100% certain that every poster here has read Revelation. I wrote a book on Revelation. This is not meant to be a "shut up because I know it all" statement. Just letting you know, that I have read both books and I feel confident with the Amil view.

I only hope the curse decreed by Christ in Revelation doesn't fall on you.

wow..chill out.