ghtan

Some people do argue that God might be deceitful if he made an earth that looks old. But I think that charge is not valid because God has openly told us that he created it over 6 days. Do you know any other objection to this approach?

If we start to import images from other parts of the bible, there will be no end to it and we can probably make Rev say anything we want it to say. That is why there is so much confusion over Rev. I believe in the natural reading and that Rev like every other book in the bible is self-explanatory. As I said previously, end-time Israel does not give birth to the end-time church. I see the inconsistency but some may not. That is OK; everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the conversation.

Yes, that is a good point. The fact that the ascension of two witnesses will be visible does weigh against Rev 11 being the rapture. I agree with you that “lampstand” is appropriate to describe the two witnesses without equating them with the church despite 1:20. But interestingly you wish to equate the male child with the church by linking harpazo to 1 Thess 4:17. Isn’t that somewhat inconsistent? Instead, context explains why harpazo is used in Rev 12. Given that Satan is pictured about to devour the male child - which you agree does represent Jesus - harpazo aptly describes him being snatched from the threat to his life. It is similarly more appropriate - and adds dramatic effect which is common in prophecy - than saying the child walks away or is simply lifted away.

Hi there. I assume you subscribe to a young earth too. I'm still thinking through the arguments to reconcile a young earth with science. At the moment, I'm inclined to the view that God simply made in 6 days a world that looked billions of years old. Just as he made a, say, 30 year-old Adam even though he was really only a few seconds old then. What do you think?

Hi there. Agree, all NT books quote or allude to the OT. But they do so to support the natural reading of the text. It is rare if at all that a different meaning results from referring to the OT text. Indeed if you think John intends to picture the rapture with a snatching up, why not go for the snatching up of the two witnesses in ch 11? Two grown ups surely symbolise the church better than one baby. Moreover, they are called lampstands (11:4) which earlier on in 1:20 were used as symbols of the church. A much stronger claim overall, don't you think?

Agree, it is more satisfying to exchange ideas than trade punches. I think most of us come to this forum with fairly set views which are unlikely to change anyway. To the extent that we are comfortable with our own views, we would less likely be offended when questioned about them. The view that some prophecies have dual fulfilment is a common one. I used to think so myself. Until one day I tried to list them. Then I realised they are actually quite rare. The vast majority (99%?) of prophecies are single fulfilment. I think when any prophecy is meant to have dual fulfilment, the text would indicate it quite clearly. I honestly don’t see anything in Rev 12:5 to suggest it. As for the need to use the OT to help us understand Rev, I can’t think of any other book in the bible that requires external help, can you? If other bible books are self-explanatory, why should Rev be any different? God as a good communicator would make it easy for his readers to understand what he has to say, especially as John’s original readers likely did not have the luxury of owing a personal copy of the OT and surely not the NT which had yet to be compiled.

The reason I asked about the 144k is that those who argue they are gentiles use a similar argument to what you are using for 12:5. They say nowhere in the bible are Jews referred to by the same twelve tribes listed in ch 7. However, I agree with you that the natural reading is that they are Jews. In the same way, even though the word harpazo is not used of Jesus elsewhere, the natural way to read 12:5 is that it refers to Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that preterists and amils - both have no vested interest in any rapture timing - also think 12:5 refers to Jesus.

Apologies if I misunderstood you. Does that mean you do not see 4:1 as the rapture? If you still do, on what basis then? If on the basis of the OT, are you not then letting the OT dictate how you read Rev? As I said earlier, I think that is unnecessary because Rev is largely self-explanatory. In any case, I have in the past looked at those OT scriptures but found that none requires us to take a pretrib view. Btw, do you read the 144,000 in Rev 7 as Jews? I'm not starting a different topic but it is related to what we are talking about.

You think harpazo cannot apply to Jesus and thus 12:5 does not refer to him but to the end-time church. Yet you think John represents the end-time church in 4:1 even though harpazo is not used. Where is the consistency? That is why those who argue 12:5 is the rapture are usually mid-trib. But more naturally, harpazo in 12:5 is aptly used of Jesus because he was delivered from many attempts by Satan to kill him during his time on earth.

Why no actual source? Is it because there aren't any, as Teditis' simple research suggests.

Hi Hazard, I believe all futurists accept that chs 4-22 expand “what must happen hereafter” of 1:19. But apart from pre-trib, other futurists do not interpret “hereafter” as “after the churches.” Because the text does not say that. Instead, “hereafter” normally means “after this” (see ESV) i.e. pointing to the future. So in 4:1 John is told that he will be shown the future in the visions to follow. We need not read more into it than what is there.

It is hard to believe that the biblical text demands a gap, because for over 3,000 years after Moses wrote Genesis, nobody read a gap into Gen 1:2. That shows it is not a natural reading. Such interpretation came about only more recently when science started claiming that the earth was very old. But most Hebrew scholars today still do not think 1:2 indicates a gap. One would think that if the text did in fact demand a gap that this would be reflected in more of the modern translations. But that is not the case. As for Bara, it is also used of the creation of animals in 1:21 and of man in 1:27. But we know from 2:7 and 2:19 that they were made from the dust of the ground, i.e. not from nothing. So word usage is not conclusive.

I find Revelation is actually not a difficult book to understand. But it is when we try to conform Revelation to passages in the other parts of the bible, particularly the OT, that confusion arises. I think we should use Revelation to help us understand OT prophecy rather than the other way around, just as we use the NT to help us understand OT messianic passages and not the other way around. Makes sense to me because Revelation is the most updated and in-depth edition of the end time given to us by God. The latest edition of any work is always the clearest. As for Rev 12:5, I am surprised you quote this to support a pre-trib view. It is more often used by mid-trib to support their view (though not by me). Reason being ch 12 is in the middle of the book, not at the beginning. But if you think the male child is the end-time church, then the woman must be end-time Israel. One must be consistent on these matters. But how can it be said that end-time Israel gives birth to the end-time church? It cannot.

Agree there is a difference between judging and wrath. But often in the bible the former leads to the latter. Hence it is significant that “judge” in the fifth seal is followed by “wrath” in the sixth. On the other hand, the text nowhere suggests that the first seal starts off that wrath. Indeed, wouldn't that be putting the cart before the horse? That the Lamb initiates the events does not mean the church will escape them. He surely must have initiated many other events in history. Context is key and in this respect the conversation in seal 5 is important. Interested to know how you interpret that conversation. I too wish the rapture will happen before Seal 1 - who wouldn't want to escape persecution - but unfortunately the text suggests otherwise to me. The consolation is that I think I will less likely be caught by surprise this way.

Take that to mean there aren't any. Thought so. Case closed.

Glad to meet someone who is willing to discuss these views without taking things personally. To me, Seal 5 indicates that the seals are not God's judgments. Those who are slain asks God, "How long until you judge the inhabitants of the earth?" If the seals were God's judgments, wouldn't he reply something like, "What do you think is happening now? I am judging the earth." Instead, God tells them to wait a little longer. It implies that his judgments will follow, likely in the form of the trumpet plagues. The church will be removed before the latter. PS. Can't find Mark 21:36 in my bible.

Moses wrote Genesis. Where else in the bible do you find a pre-Adamic civilisation mentioned?

Why would Moses tell readers about a pre-Adamic civilisation? How is that relevant to us? If such a generation existed, it would surely qualify as one of the secret things of Deut 29:29. Doubt then that Gen 1:2 refers to it.

It is unlikely the church is the one doing the holding back because church in greek is feminine whereas the one holding back is masculine/neuter. The Holy Spirit is grammatically neuter but is also masculine because it is the third person of the trinity.

I think learning to lead a simple life is crucial to being prepared. Then we have less to hold us back if we have to run. And if we will more likely resist taking the mark if we have fewer assets to lose by doing so.

A character is said to be revealed in each of verse 3, 6 and 8. In v 3 and v 8, it is clearly the man of lawlessness. For consistency, v 6 should also refer to this person. The current translations are therefore right. The one withholding him from being revealed must logically be opposed to him. Hence the common view that it is the Holy Spirit, which I think is correct.

Many thanks for the info on Sep 23. As for Ps 41:9, David was referring to someone who betrayed to him. Maybe Ahithophel. That’s how OT readers would have understood it. It was not intended as prophecy, otherwise we would have to explain how the disease in 41:8 was fulfilled by Jesus. The NT nevertheless draws parallels between the lives of David and Jesus so as to show that Jesus qualifies as the “son” of David because many features of his life mirrored that of David’s. It is typology not prophecy.

It would support your case if you could show where else in the bible the second half of a Hebrew parallelism is simply the first half worded in reverse order, thus adding no value. With Ps 90, if “watch in the night” emphasizes “day,” it does so figuratively because they are obviously not literally equal. Now since that comparison is figurative, so too should the comparison between a thousand years and a day in the same sentence.

You're ok. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are quite careful with your theology (even though we do not agree on many issues). On a general note, if the purpose of exegesis is to uncover what the biblical writer meant by what they wrote, how could they possibly mean what they were not aware of? Btw, forgive my ignorance but what is happening on Sept 23?

Hi there! Thanks for the calculation. Interesting. However, if you interpret 2 Pet 3:8 literally, how do you explain that the verse goes on to say that a thousand (presumably heavenly) years are like a (presumably earth) day. Doesn't the verse thereby contradict itself? Similarly Ps 90:4 goes on to add "or like a watch in the night"? So, which is it - a thousand earth years equal one heavenly day or one heavenly watch in the night? The 'self-contradictions' in these verses should immediately warn us not to read them literally.