ARGOSY

Hide yourself, as it were, FOR A LITTLE MOMENT, Until the indignation is past. Precisely how long is the "little moment." 2 hours? 7 years? If you are able to give precise biblical evidence of how long that particular little moment is, then we should be able to pinpoint what indignation is being referred to. If you are unable to give anything more than assumption, this could be referring to a period of a few hours, and the indignation of wrath of the great earthquake and Armageddon.

Yeah occasionally in other time periods, your way of viewing the noun apostasia could be correct. Not quite game, set and match hmm? As for the verb, that has a different meaning and so it's usage is irrelevant. Just because it has the same root, and similar spelling, does not mean it is the verb form of the noun "apostasia". The meanings have diversified, the verb staying with the root meaning of physical departure, and the noun now relating to revolt, rebels, rebellions, political strife, and in a religious sense apostasy and defection. The verb has moved too far away from the meaning of the noun, for it's usage to have any relevance to this chat. Yours is the view of unlikely possibilities, mine is the view of accepting the face value meaning of the Bible. If we stay in the realm of unlikely possible interpretations, we can get way off track. If we stick strictly to the most obvious face value meaning of any text, we can develop a wholesome and integrated viewpoint, difficult to find flaws.

Sure some verbs and nouns retain aspects of the original meaning over time, other words develop and change their meaning over time. I'm stating the obvious. So to understand a word, you need to see how society used that word at that time. Regarding context, new subjects are introduced into sentences all the time. We cannot disregard the meaning of words, just because a new subject comes up.

You try to make it sound like the verb and the noun are still have the same meaning as their root word. Sometimes verbs and nouns stay connected to their root words, and sometimes the meaning changes over time. Eg the root word for govern, is Latin "gubernator" which means a ships pilot. The meaning has changed. Your huge explanations do not detract from the simple fact that whatever the origins of the word "apostasia" means defection/revolt. The word is not associated with "departure", but is associated with rebels and rebellion. from Ancient Greek ἀποστασία (apostasía, “defection, revolt”). Long posts cannot change the simple meaning of a Greek word 2000 years ago, that is still used today. Sure some verb with the same roots and similar spelling may have a different meaning, but it's just a word with same roots and similar spelling, with a different meaning.

It means "forsake". Defection. Revolt. Apostasy. Not depart. The gathering (rapture) will not occur until the forsaking occurs, and the antichrist is revealed. Check a modern Greek dictionary or an ancient one it means apostasy, revolt. From Latin apostasia, from Ancient Greek ἀποστασία (apostasía, “defection, revolt”) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to FORSAKE G646 Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. You and Dr Woods may disagree, but that's the meaning of the word, to forsake. To cherry pick one pre-trib expert opinion, isn't "game, set, match". It's decision "overruled".

Isaiah 26? How long is "a little moment"? 2 hours? 7 years? I dont think we can force a doctrine from two words that don't hint at a timeframe. Another thought is that Israel must hide during the GT, in their safe place in the wilderness. Isaiah 26 is hardly a proof verse for the rapture, in fact the primary descriptions of the rapture are at the coming of Christ, which is actually a coming. If it is Christ coming, then it's the second coming. The Bible places the rapture at the second coming.

The elect is the church. Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness 1 Peter 1 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

I dont buy that extended day of the Lord view. It is often in context of an actual day, but Pretribs like to extend it. Post tribs do not need to extend it. It's just one of those mental gymnastics that pretribbers need to use, but nothing contradicts the simpler view that the day of the Lord, is a day.

You would need gymnastics to support you view, the straightforward reading of the text, is that our gathering does NOT occur until the antichrist is revealed: Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will Not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed That's straightforward until Pretrib start messing with the logic. They mustn't be concerned that they missed some big events, they haven't missed anything, the antichrist will be revealed FIRST. As for two old coots agreeing on a verse in Isaiah, that's neither here nor there, what verse?

Exactly, two or three witnesses. We are gathered earlier on that day, I keep agreeing with you that we are gathered first, then the wrath occurs. Where we may differ is that I believe it all occurs on the same day, the day of the second coming. Multiple verses confirm that the gathering into the clouds occurs at the coming of Christ. Your post confirms this, as do the two main descriptions of the gathering as per 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15. Does the second coming occur on the same day as a day of wrath and destruction? Read this folks, 1 Thess 4/5: we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words. Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. Confirmed again, our gathering is associated with the day of the Lord, the thief in the night, and destruction of the ungodly, just as per the gathering of the saints in the Olivet Discourse in Matt 24 at the second coming. Are there two comings, two gatherings, two last trumpets, two resurrections. No folks, just one.

1 Cor 15 We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and WE will be changed (living believers will be changed) Where is any earlier rapture if 1 Cor 15 says us living believers will be raptured at the resurrection, at the coming of Christ? The resurrection occurs at the beginning of the millennium, not 7 years earlier at some earlier rapture.

I noticed you didn't deal with my point that the descriptions of a rapture in 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15, involve the coming of Christ. Its interesting that the Bible calls the rapture of the saints, the coming of Christ, yet pre-tribbers don't like to call that the second coming.

As I said, I am pre-wrath because the rapture comes earlier on that day, then the war of Rev 19. The Olivet Discourse describes the gathering of the saints at the second coming. 1 Thess 4 describes the rapture at the "coming of the Lord", not earlier. 1 Cor 15 describes the rapture as a resurrection "when he comes" (both the resurrection, and Jesus coming, are obviously second coming events) 2 Thess 2 states the antichrist must come first then the gathering. Every time the rapture is mentioned, it is in second coming context, I see no need for complicated explanations when the face value meaning works just fine. (and a "swoop" is a coming, because the Bible has no problem calling it a coming)

Interesting what you say about the proximity of the Mt of Olives to Jehosaphat. Sure I'm pre-wrath. I believe we miss the wrath at the second coming, the resurrection occurring earlier in the day. The winepress of wrath outside Jerusalem in the valley of Jehosaphat occurring later in the day. We are raptured earlier, but even though mortal Israel endures more of the wrath on that day, they too will be saved from certain destruction through the intervention of the heavenly army. We will be in that army, those wearing the white linen of Rev 19.

Thanks for the reply, my view is similar, but being post-trib not quite the same. I believe the nations will be judged for how they treat Christians and Israel. On a national, not individual basis. I don't quite agree with your Jehosaphat comparison, that is specifically the destruction of all the attacking armies on the DOTL, in the mountainous area to the East of Jerusalem, also known as the winepress of wrath in Rev 14 and Rev 19. But forgetting the details, I agree that the saved are resurrected earlier, and the better nations survive the second coming and populate the millennium. The bad nations are destroyed at the second coming.

Why does no one deal with the fact that the Carboniferous had co2 of over 2000ppm. And the world was pretty bounteous then with abundant forests etc. The climate drama smacks of exaggeration. We all know we should eat our vegetables, even currently a grain based diet isn't the best thing. Vegetables and fruit consistently do better under higher co2. I can't wait for all that better nutrition.

It's not actually a major problem at all. 96% of the worlds population are getting our nutrients from fruit and veg, not grains. And even grains show anincrease in concentration of certain vitamins under increased co2, the third world could do with the vitamin E boost under increased c02. So even under the worst case scenarios there will be both vitamin gains and drops in grains, but fruit and veg seems to be mainly gains. It sounds pretty good actually. Especially since the Carboniferous was absolutely flourishing under co2 levels above 2000ppm. Carrots seem to do really well under increased co2, ESPECIALLY when combined with higher temperatures : https://www.vegetableclimate.com/crop-impacts/carrots/ Because carrot roots store photosynthate, it has been suggested that yield may be very responsive to increased CO2 concentration. Yield increases of up to 110% in the presence of double normal CO2 levels have been reported. However, these should not be seen as typical. In a study in tunnels where temperature ranged from 7.5 – 10.9C, a 31% increase in root weight was observed when CO2 concentration was increased to 550ppm. On average, carrot yields increased about 34% for every 1C increase in temperature due to faster growth and development. Another study found that carrot yield more than doubled with high CO2, although this research found the effect only occurred at temperatures over 12C. More work is needed to evaluate the effect of predicted changes in CO2 concentration and temperature on carrots.

You will never accept a good point. Although your claim is that all plants are affected, the studies have mentioned grains, mainly rice. I could read between the lines that they were focusing on grains, the very first fruit study confirmed what I suspected reading the grain studies. You can convince yourself that it's only 1 fruit that benefits under higher co2, but it was already pretty clear from your own links that focussed in on grains, that the other plants haven't shown nutrient deficiency under high co2. But even the grains are higher in vitamin E under elevated co2. The end conclusion, is that even under worst case scenario, only 4 percent of the earth will be affected by a possible 10 percent drop in some nutrients, because they already have an unhealthy over-dependence on grains. This isn't the immediate world crisis scientists are claiming. Most of us will benefit from the increased nutrition, even the 4 percent, because they have 30 years to start introducing mineral supplements and vegetables into their diets to make up for a possible slight loss.

Okay I have found a study that refers to fruit, not grain. Not only did the biomass/fruit size increase with increased co2, but in addition after 78 days after bloom (DAB) the concentration of minerals was also higher in pears: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00380768.1999.10409352&ved=2ahUKEwidisCx5rflAhUTfMAKHckqDrQQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw19MKGtTByd8KoqWsk6lXIH [ CO2 enrichment had no significant effect on the fruit mineral contents until 78 DAB but higher N and K contents have maintained thereafter, particularly K content, compared to the control.] So grains will be down in minerals but up in vit E Fruit seems to be generally better off. Higher N and K.

https://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-favorite-skeptic-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science I don't doubt that temperatures have risen by 0.9 percent in the last 100 years, they rose more than that from 1700 to 1800. World temp is always up and down from natural causes. However the study you have quoted from, is still subject to peer review. Back to the grains, they seem to brush over the fact that some important vitamins IMPROVE with more co2 in these same grains : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/05/27/rising-co2-is-reducing-the-nutritional-value-of-our-food/amp/ [high CO2 affects the plants ability to build molecules containing nitrogen. B vitamins, which contain nitrogen, tended to decrease while nitrogen-free carbon-rich compounds, like vitamin E, increased.] So the studies specifically focus on grains which actually improve with some vitamins, without giving us info on non-grains, which probably improve with all vitamins. Why don't they give us non-grain stats? Carrots, lettuce, avocado, apples. How do they do under high co2, any studies? And like I keep saying, the Carboniferous was pretty successful with CO2 levels astronomically higher than today, over 2000ppm. Huge insects, massive trees, it actually seems more luscious than todays world.

What data? Urban weather stations which reflect local urban trends? You haven't yet given me the source of their so called data. Just "scientists say".

Aah natural cycles that correct themselves. Interesting. Now we want to intervene, creating a mess. In the meantime the instruments are merely detecting urbanization, the increased co2 and temp levels in localized urban areas (3% of earth). Humans are breathing higher co2 levels in cities. Does that influence the other 97% of the landmass? I would like to know.

Interesting article. Growing urban areas have increasing temperatures and co2 levels. Any weather station based anywhere near a growing urban area will reflect increasing temperatures and co2 levels over time. Scientists have duped themselves

Sure grains are where most people get their calories, me too really. But most of us get the test of our nutrients from vegetables. That is why the one article says only 150 million are vulnerable to a drop in minerals. Very grain based diets. You talk about bedding plants to overcome this... How about simply eat vegetables, it's the grains that they claim are vulnerable to the projected increases in CO2 levels. I don't think they are lying, it's just they themselves use speculation. They use words like could, possibly, speculate. There's uncertainty in their own wording. And due to evidence being misinterpreted because climate change is currently the cool topic, this leads to confirmation bias. The tendency to jump to favorable conclusions too quickly. So no I do not accept "scientists say" as a conclusive argument. I want to know what instruments they used, where they used them, what time they used them. As per my next post, the location of any measurements near an urban Centre will distort the trend. I want to eliminate any possibility of confirmation bias before I believe "scientists say". The bias was glaringly obvious in the one article, which emphasized the possible loss of nutrients in certain grains, yet freely admitted that it was only some plants, and yet will the other plants have absolutely zero change? They don't say, it's possible other plants have a gain in nutrient value. Ruining the whole argument. Veg based societies could then improve their nutrition. Why don't they give the stats for most vegetable plants? Maybe 150 million (4 percent) in grain exclusive societies will need to top up their losses by changing their diet. Maybe the rest (96 percent) will have a 10 percent improvement in nutrient content. Net effect..... Good. The study just brushes over the rest of the plants, confirmation bias making them mention the few plants that have reduced nutrients. But I need to see the studies too, I'm curious about the CO2 levels they predict.

That's all very speculative. Maybe, if co2 possibly reaches a certain level by 2050, some countries who eat too much grain, could have reduced mineral uptake. I find you attachments didn't give the science behind it, neither confirming the claims quoted. The one study was about rice, at predicted 2100 AD co2 levels. The other was just an article, claiming "scientists say". The actual studies and their methodology was not included, so how can I check the logic? But the gist of their conclusion is that in the next 80 years, if 4 percent of the population doesn't start eating more veggies, there will be a slight increased exposure to malnutrition because the grains may lose about 10 percent of their protein/mineral nutritition. But this is only with certain plants, not all plants. It seems mainly the grains.