toknowthetruth

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself? Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here. Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture. But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way. Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping! Surprisingly, I think we may be making some progress. It appears you now agree the ch 7 multitude is the raptured church in heaven. (See the first statement I underlined above.) However, why then do you see this as a post-trib rapture if the GT is still to follow (see second underlined statement)? I think if you reread what I already wrote in the above paragraph that you are commenting on you will find the answer to your question. To shift gears a bit, the original intent of my asking you about your claim was to get a better understanding of a mid-trib interpretation. So I hope you don't mind if I jot down what I know about it and let you make any necessary corrections and fill in the missing gaps. I would be grateful if you would oblige me on this. So far, what I know about the mid-trib rapture is according to the interpretation the last 7 years is all part of the tribulation. The first half is sort of a general trib, and the last half is the GT. The saints will be raptured at the end of the first half of the 7. I'm not sure but there may be some others rapture at the end of the 7? (144,000?) So far I've heard about the passage in Rev 7 we've been discussing and chapter 12 that has two mentions of 3.5 years of persecution as support for it. Can you let me know what other verses there are that support it? Thanks. Why seek more evidence unless you can explain ch 7? I've already gone over that with you. Either you didn't understand, or you dismissed what I said. Either way I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for what little input you did provide about your view. Hopefully I can find out more about mid-trib from someone else.

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself? Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here. Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture. But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way. Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping! Surprisingly, I think we may be making some progress. It appears you now agree the ch 7 multitude is the raptured church in heaven. (See the first statement I underlined above.) However, why then do you see this as a post-trib rapture if the GT is still to follow (see second underlined statement)? I think if you reread what I already wrote in the above paragraph that you are commenting on you will find the answer to your question. To shift gears a bit, the original intent of my asking you about your claim was to get a better understanding of a mid-trib interpretation. So I hope you don't mind if I jot down what I know about it and let you make any necessary corrections and fill in the missing gaps. I would be grateful if you would oblige me on this. So far, what I know about the mid-trib rapture is according to the interpretation the last 7 years is all part of the tribulation. The first half is sort of a general trib, and the last half is the GT. The saints will be raptured at the end of the first half of the 7. I'm not sure but there may be some others rapture at the end of the 7? (144,000?) So far I've heard about the passage in Rev 7 we've been discussing and chapter 12 that has two mentions of 3.5 years of persecution as support for it. Can you let me know what other verses there are that support it? Thanks.

FYI in the US you can buy gold coins/bars at a jeweler or online and get them delivered to your house or to a safe deposit box of your choice. Don't know what the situation is in Europe but I'm sure you can get gold coins which have a little higher premium than gold bars, but I think you can get gold bars as well. The premium in the US is @ $30 per oz for bars and $40 for gold coins. http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/?gclid=CjwKEAjw1f6vBRC7tLqO_aih5WISJAAE0CYwiN4qVzj16KW82L0bqPn9AXRKgGR43gi47Wuor9yAlhoCxUTw_wcB Thanks other one. There are several online dealers. As far as I can tell it's a safe and convenient way to go about it. I would just make sure to do my research into which one to use and have a good understanding of how they operate and be comfortable with the process before ordering online.

FYI in the US you can buy gold coins/bars at a jeweler or online and get them delivered to your house or to a safe deposit box of your choice. Don't know what the situation is in Europe but I'm sure you can get gold coins which have a little higher premium than gold bars, but I think you can get gold bars as well. The premium in the US is @ $30 per oz for bars and $40 for gold coins.

Thankyou for this post .I am not too interested in finance on a daily basis ,but would appreciate a word on how this would affect the euro if it happens . In my opinion it's really hard to know exactly what's going to happen. For what it's worth my advice is, if you have savings, to diversify them into different things like some local currency, some gold and/or silver, some other stable currencies like SF, etc. You might lose a little in the deal but in my opinion it's worth it to have a bit of a safety net even if you never need it. And try to have at least a few weeks or a month's stock of food and supplies. And most of all trust the Lord and His promises to keep us through any trial. 1Peter 4:12-13 Thank you Marilyn ,you are very kind . Will take advice ,and depend on the Lord for the rest . Sorry Marilyn, guess I should have let you answer that one. Hope you don't mind.

Thankyou for this post .I am not too interested in finance on a daily basis ,but would appreciate a word on how this would affect the euro if it happens . In my opinion it's really hard to know exactly what's going to happen. For what it's worth my advice is, if you have savings, to diversify them into different things like some local currency, some gold and/or silver, some other stable currencies like SF, etc. You might lose a little in the deal but in my opinion it's worth it to have a bit of a safety net even if you never need it. And try to have at least a few weeks or a month's stock of food and supplies. And most of all trust the Lord and His promises to keep us through any trial. 1Peter 4:12-13

Yes, you hit the nail on the head there.

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself? Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here. Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture. But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way. Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping!

Not so sure about that. From what I understand having the Dollar as the global currency that almost all international trade is done with is one of the major factors keeping the US a float. It's one of it's most powerful economic weapons. And if another currency should take it's place as the medium of international exchange I'm expecting it to tremendously weaken the US both economically and politically. Just the way I see it from what I understand of the situation. it will force us to stop living above our means.... and that is the fist thing any financial person will tell you when financial counciling. Well, that would be great if that's all it ends up doing. I have a feeling though it's going to affect things a lot more profoundly than that. But that's just how I see it. However, I think it behooves us as Christians to take heed to Jesus' warning to "watch and pray" lest we end up with our house broken into because we didn't take heed to the signs of the approaching thief. Matt 24:43

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period. "When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it. So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer. And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion. As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets. Hope that helps. Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position. Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years? I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period. "When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it. So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer. And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion. As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets. Hope that helps. Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position. Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years?

Not so sure about that. From what I understand having the Dollar as the global currency that almost all international trade is done with is one of the major factors keeping the US a float. It's one of it's most powerful economic weapons. And if another currency should take it's place as the medium of international exchange I'm expecting it to tremendously weaken the US both economically and politically. Just the way I see it from what I understand of the situation.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period. "When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it. So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer. And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Well, let me be clear here on some small points. First, there is no need for me to reconcile what I think with Revelation, because I have not been presented with any conflict with Revelation. Reconciliation, is to make right, something that is wrong, or to make order out of disorder. Revelation is demonstrably non-chronological, therefore it is difficult for me to have extreme convictions of sequence, based on that particular book. There is of course, symbolism in Revelation to an extent, that does not exist in other New Testament documents, compounding the problem. Revelation seems to me, to have more extremes in variance of understanding that perhaps any book in the Bible, I just do not feel like I am smart enough, to unravel a book that I am not convinced anyone else has yet unraveled, lol. I do not see where it logically follows, nor that the Bible asserts, that Revelation should be the clearest book on what the future holds, so I have a fundamental disagreement there. All I would conclude about latter books, is that they could contain additional information, but that does not necessarily equate to clarity. To the degree that I am content with the post-trib view, it is due to the fact, that I see it as containing no contradictions with any verse or passage of scripture, and it does not insert into the end times scenario, things that are not stated is scripture (like pre-trib raptures, secret comings and the like). So, having this view of total harmony and zero compatibility issues with scripture, let suppose I decide to examine Revelation. What position does the place me in? One of four things will happen, either Revelation will confirm, what I already hold, or it will contradict it, or it will add to it, or it will have no effect. If it has no effect, then there is little to be gained. If it confirms it, then nothing is gained either. if it adds to it, so what, I already have all the details I need for the rest of my life now, although that might be interesting. If it contradicts it, then one of three things is wrong, of those three I get to choose from: 1. My theory is wrong 2. My new, Revelation based theory is wrong 3 Both theories are wrong. From choice 3, I do not know how I could even know that, and I have no known alternatives to move to, that I know to be right. From choices numbers one and two, I should choose the other theory, but again, how would I know which one to go with? So then I am faced with the question: Do I go with a theory that is compatable with every other book of the Bible that deals with eschatology, but has a rub with a single, difficult book, full of visions and symbols and is unclear, of should I accept a theory based on an interpreation that I suspect is prone to errors, based on a single book that I admit to not understanding completely? There is a principle in exegetical practice, which I think makes a lot of sense: Always interpret unclear passages in the light of the clearer ones. That is what I have tried to do, and is one reason why I do not spend a lot of time in the book of Revelation. Regarding the period of wrath after the tribulation. Allow me to restate and/or clarify. I believe that there is a period of time, after the tribulation, which contains Gods wrath. Time, a period, is not Gods wrath. That post-trib period, is a span of time, during which God expresses or exercises His wrath. However, his wrath is not limited to that period only, and it is has already been expressed many times, and that time just after the tribulation, is not even the last time that He will express His wrath. I do not know if that clarified or muddied the waters, regarding my thoughts (for you), but hopefully it allowed me to make what I hold to be true, and what I am not willing to go on record as holding to be true, more clear. I know that sentence is not even clear, but what I mean to say, is that there are things that I believe to be true, and believe with enough conviction, to say I am confident, x, y, and z will take place. There are things, I am confident in saying that I am confident a, b, and c, will not take place, and then there are all the other letters, where I can say I do not know, or I am unsure, and I do not make them part of my 'official' position. Those things are not part of my official position, because I do not want to assure people of things, that may be error. I apologize for my limited ability to communicate what it is, that I am attempting to say, but it is a limitation I do not know how to overcome. Why would God add information if it does not make the picture more complete and thus clearer? Therefore, I find Revelation gives a better idea of what to expect in the last days than the earlier parts of scripture relating to this subject. I would have little confidence on any end-time view unless I find it supported in Revelation. But, that's just me. To each his own. I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages. From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.