Understanding the Final One Seven

[Serving]

Just now, Marcus O'Reillius said:

 

No, actually according to the Hebrew Syntax book, both pronouns refer to same antecedent actor: the prince who will come.

That's six "clear/clearly's" in your post, so as an indicator that something is anything but "clear" as you have stated it, you've gone over the line with a 500% margin of error added onto all other the errors that I've been pointing out.

In my opinion, the Preterist position on Daniel 9 is absolutely weak and unsubstantiated.  I can only speculate that holding onto it must relate to some emotional disdain for the idea that the dreaded one 'seven' is something through which we must also suffer.  

Endure patiently God says in prophecy concerning this time.

I am not a Preterist Marcus, the very first time I was called that, I had to look it up .. we all read the same bible so of course there are similar trains of thought .. nevertheless, when I did look into Preterism, guess what? I did NOT agree at all with it's propositions (except for some similarities), so I can't be a Preterist now can I.

I sense you are protecting a position TAUGHT to you instead of honest inquiry, that is, you are obviously biased by the instruction of your peers.

I myself am not constrained by such restraints and am free to go where the evidence leads, altering any errors at will and without bias.

As for emotional disdain, that is nothing but a cheap shot I find ludicrous and ill informed to the extreme.

Tell me, 

WHO fulfils the 6 requirements in Daniel?

1) The Israelite's

2) the Messiah

or

3) the destroyer?

 

[Serving]

44 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

 

No, actually according to the Hebrew Syntax book, both pronouns refer to same antecedent actor: the prince who will come.

That's six "clear/clearly's" in your post, so as an indicator that something is anything but "clear" as you have stated it, you've gone over the line with a 500% margin of error added onto all other the errors that I've been pointing out.

In my opinion, the Preterist position on Daniel 9 is absolutely weak and unsubstantiated.  I can only speculate that holding onto it must relate to some emotional disdain for the idea that the dreaded one 'seven' is something through which we must also suffer.  

Endure patiently God says in prophecy concerning this time.

Marcus,

I recently posed a question in my post "God's ultimatum to Israel" which I think is quite devastating to the concept of the outstanding & future week doctrine which besides the above question to you, I challenge you to likewise address.

Serving.   

[Marcus O'Reillius]

18 hours ago, Serving said:

I sense you are protecting a position TAUGHT to you instead of honest inquiry, that is, you are obviously biased by the instruction of your peers.

I am not constrained by any teaching but looked long and hard at each eschatology to check my initial point.  First I had to question the Millennial, adopting both Ammillenial and Post-Millennial viewpoints.  However each was not consistent with a literal interpretation methodology.  Next I studied Pre-Trib, but abandoned it because of its internal inconsistencies.  Likewise with classical Post-Trib; while "last means last" is simple, it proved too simple to work with the complexity of end-time prophecy.   My own Mid-Trib position fell as well, and the facts of end-time prophecy led me to develope an entirely new approach: the Sequence-of-Events, and that led to my conversion to Pre-Wrath.

The best about my Sequence-of-Events approach, is that the resulting Pre-Wrath outline I have developed is perfectly in accordance with all the major linear narratives for end-time eschatology.  There is no internal inconsistency.  I ought to finish my book and see about getting it published, but discussions with people like you actually depress me along those lines.  There are too many kooky ideas circulating around that my idea gets lost admist the cacophony of voices all shouting: "It is clear that..." and then going off on some tangent.

And emotional investment is not to be discounted.  Not only do people stick to what they "know" because they've spent so much time defending it; so too, people literally are afraid of the end-times, and some will go to great lengths of leaps of logic and illogic to maintain an eschatology which lets them escape what they fear.  So obviously?  Don't delude yourself that you know what I think comes from someone else.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

21 hours ago, Serving said:

WHO fulfils the 6 requirements in Daniel?

Non-sequitur.

The very fact that only Jesus can fulfill the purposes ought to unite Jesus' First and Second Advents within the whole seventy 'sevens' since the argument can be made that these three: "to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place" have not been fully realized.

The very Preterist argument that relegates Daniel 9:27 to the past has yet to provide any hard confirmation in Scripture that Jesus made any OT Covenant stronger at the beginning of His First Advent.  Focusing on an unbroken time happening with Jesus, Preterism hems and haws at what the abomination(s) was, and only points at a description of the to-be-emptied Most Holy Place as the desolation.  Yet literal sacrifice and offering went on unabated.  It only lightly covers the end of the one 'seven' and tries to pin it on the stoning of Stephen.

Preterist arguments centering on the First Jewish Revolt build a gap in time yet say no gap can exist which allows it to be future-oriented.  They too, have a difficult time being specific as to its beginning, midpoint and end.

On the other hand, looking at the detailed parallel account of the "end" in verse 27, first mentioned in the broader overview parallel set-up in verses 25-26; as centering on the 'ruler who will come' is confirmed by Revelation chapters 13-16.  He is the one who rises and has authority for the first half of the one 'seven.'  It is he who is venerated as a false-Christ.  He is the one to whom a talking image idol is erected!

Quite inline with the Olivet Discourse, immediately following the abomination erected in Revelation 13-16, come two laws which make the Great Tribulation so terrible for the Elect!  They are then rescued by Jesus coming on the clouds - and then - God's Wrath follows which ends with the Bowl Judgments being poured out on the desolator ruler who will come!  War ends with Armageddon, and THEN, we can realize the final three purposes of the seventy 'sevens' with Jesus' Sabbath Millennium.

So the purpose of the seventy 'sevens' involve BOTH of Jesus' Advents.  That He is the focus of all, in no way prevents the villain of the story from being the impetus for the advancement of the plot which sees our Hero respond to win the day.

[ghtan]

9 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

My own Mid-Trib position fell as well, and the facts of end-time prophecy led me to develope an entirely new approach: the Sequence-of-Events, and that led to my conversion to Pre-Wrath.

 

Hi there!

I read with interest your journey through the various rapture positions. As a mid-tribber, I am curious what was it that you found wanting in mid-trib that led you to adopt pre-wrath instead.

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, Serving.

I'd like some clarification, please. Where did you get your information to claim...

'2) After the stoning of Stephen, 3 1/2 years after crucifixion, ALL the disciples fled to Damascus and based themselves there (where they were first called Christians in Antioch) except for the Apostles who hid & worked out of Jerusalem itself for the "mopping up" as it were?'

[Retrobyter]

On June 29, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

I am not wrong, because I rely on better scholars who are not wrong.

You simply cannot check to see what a word means in a translation by looking at a concordance.

ALL A CONCORDANCE WILL DO IS TELL YOU HOW A WORD IS TRANSLATED.  A CONCORDANCE IS NOT A DICTIONARY.

This is the very nature of a circular argument.  The Stongs' Concordance will only validate what you're reading in the King James as meaning what it is translated as, and it will not tell you anything else.

gabar as a verb means to prevail.  In this instance, the KJV translators renders this root word, which has a definite definition in the Hebrew, as "confirm."  This mixes in a very old definition of that English word with the meaning of gabar as an adjective.  It is a stretch to say the least, and in part reflects the KJV translators' understanding of what they thought was going on - rather than give the best word-for-word translation possible.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT gabar MEANS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A WORD STUDY BOOK.  I use the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.  It is a Ph.D. level seminary reference book.  I asked a Ph.D. level minister and professor at a nearby Bible College what books I should use to understand the original languages, and this is one of the ones he uses and recommended to me.

Now, as I care about the Bible and your study into our mutual interest, here is what a real scholar wrote on gabar:

Now at no time does John N. Oswalt, Ph.D. say gabar means to confirm.  There is a specific Hebrew word that does mean to confirm: Gabriel did not use it as recorded by Daniel.  Too bad Professor Oswalt didn't tackle Daniel 9:27 head-on, but the sense I get with this particular instance, is that nobody want to touch it as it has become the third rail of Bible translation to go against what the King James version translators have wrought.  Even the NASB pays homage, only going so far that gabar is to make stronger, but again, that misses the real mark.

Here is something from a hundred years ago.  Notice that only in two instances with the Hiphil stem does the word meaning change, and even these authors give an alternate translation with Ps 12:4 (which is not 12:5 as annotated) which comports to the original word meaning over what the King James translators did.  

The modern KJV uses "prevail" in Psalm 12:4, and not "confirm" - which makes Daniel 9:27 the ONLY TIME they change the word meaning for this important verb.

I hope that helps you, but you really need to look at gabar with more discernment than accepting what was, in my opinion, mistranslated so long ago.

Shabbat shalom, Marcus. You claim that "a concordance is not a dictionary." HOWEVER, the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance CONTAINS dictionaries as appendices.

Quote

 

EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE

Together with
DICTIONARIES OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS
Of the Original
With References to the English Words

By
JAMES STRONG, S.T.D., LL.D.

HEBREW AND CHALDEE DICTIONARY

Preface

This work, although prepared as a companion to the Exhaustive Concordance, to which it is specially adapted, is here paged and printed so that it can be bound separately, in the belief that a brief and simple Dictionary of the Biblical Hebrew and Chaldee will be useful to students and others, who do not care at all times to consult a more copious and elaborate Lexicon; and it will be particularly serviceable to many who are unable to turn conveniently and rapidly, amid the perplexities and details of foreign characters with which the pages of Gesenius and Fürst bristle, to the fundamental and essential points of information that they are seeking. Even scholars will find here, not only all of a strictly verbal character which they most frequently want in ordinary consultation of a lexicon, but numerous original suggestions, relations and distinctions, carefully made and clearly put, which are not unworthy of their attention, especially in the affinities of roots and the classification of meanings. The portable form and moderated cost of the book, it is hoped, will facilitate its use with all classes. The vocabulary is complete as to the ground-forms that actually occur in the biblical text (or Kethib), with the pointing that properly belongs to them. Their designation by numbers will especially aid those who are not very familiar with the original language, and theAnglicizing and pronunciation of the words will not come amiss to multitudes who have some acquaintance with it. The addition of the renderings in the common version will greatly contribute to fixing and extending the varied significations and applications of the Hebrew and Chaldee words, as well as to correcting their occasionally wrong translations. On this account, as well as for the sake of precision and to prevent repetition, the use of the same terms in the preceding definitions has been avoided whenever practicable. The design of the volume, being purely lexical, does not include grammatical, archaeological, or exegetical details, which would have swelled its size and encumbered its plan.

By observing the subjoined directions, in the associated use of the Main and Comparative Concordances, the reader will have substantially a Concordance-Dictionary of both the Authorized and the Revised English Versions, as well as of the Hebrew Bible.

1890, by James Strong

.....

GREEK DICTIONARY

 

Preface

 

This work is entirely similar in origin, method, and design, to the author’s Hebrew Dictionary, and may be employed separately, for a corresponding purpose and with a like result, namely, to be serviceable to many who have not the wish of the ability to use a more copious Lexicon of New Testament Greek. In this case also even scholars will find many suggestions and explanations not unworthy their attention.

 

1890, by James Strong

 

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

Share on Google+

 

I grew up with the KJV as my ONLY Bible. I was a KJV-Only most of my pre-adult life. Being born in '57, I was probably one of the lucky ones who never KNEW of another version until I was in high school. (Of course, the full version of the NIV didn't come out until '78 and the NASV in '71, and both were .)

And, as a kid, I was ALWAYS reading dictionaries and encyclopaedias. I've had both the Strong's dictionaries and those of the Young's Concordance to read. I've even copied out HUGE portions of those dictionaries in the process of learning Greek and Hebrew before I ever took a lesson! My first introduction to the Hebrew alphabet was a version of a KJV Bible that had the Hebrew letters and their English names in the sections of Psalm 119.

I have ALWAYS used the word "prevail" in normal conversations, but always in situations where I might say, "if you do (such and such), you shall prevail!" Or, in telling information about the past, I might say, "he took on his opponent, and he prevailed." I have often used the word with prepositions, like "he prevailed upon me to teach the Sunday School lesson," or "I prevailed over my fear of public speaking," or "they fought in the ring and the underdog prevailed over his opponent."

I have NEVER used the word "prevail" as you've suggested: "he caused the covenant to be prevailed." That doesn't even make sense to me. Nor have I ever used the word as you suggest in this sentence: "So again, in order to make Jesus the actor of the 3ms pronoun 'he' inherent in the conjugation of the verb gabar - you have to show specifically HOW He caused a limited-time covenant to be prevailed (by might)." Again, that seems so AWKWARD to me!

I picture the word "prevail" as a man climbing a mountain. When he achieves the summit and he is once again on level ground at the top, and he has "PREVAILED." In that sense, it is rather like the word "conquer." He didn't "cause the covenant to be prevailed," which suggests to me the addition of the preposition "upon" or "over" as an adverb or the rest of the prepositional phrase as an adverbial phrase; "He caused the covenant to prevail!" It's not implying the usage of the PASSIVE voice, that is, "the covenant was prevailed (upon/over ...)," but the ACTIVE voice, that is, "the covenant prevailed!" To ratify a covenant, meaning to STRENGTHEN a covenant, is EXACTLY what Yeshua` did. And, that is a PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE definition for "gaavar," which means "be strong, be mighty; increase, grow stronger."

First, recognize that the "vet" that I transliterate and pronounce as "V" is the original letter. "Bet," transliterated and pronounced as a "b," is a "vet" with a dagesh - the dot in the middle of the letter. 

Sometimes when investigating a Hebrew word, you have to read the definitions of words that are IN THE SAME WORD FAMILY as the original to understand the meaning of the base word, such as G-V-R: "GViyr = a rich man," "geVer = man, male; he-man; cock (rooster)," "gaVraa' = man, male," "gaVrowt = masculinity," "gaVriy = male, manly, masculine," "gVeret = lady; madame; Miss, Mrs.," and "gVartaan = strong man, 'tough guy'." The name "Gavri'el" (G-V-R) also transliterated as "Gabriel," means "God is my strength." One of the titles for God is "Eel Gibowr," meaning "Mighty God."

The underlying theme of all these words is "strength," not "prevail." "To prevail" is "to have strength enough to overcome." And, one must overcome either adversity, one's own failings, or another person. Then, he has "prevailed."

When one adds "strength" to a document, he FORTIFIES it; he RATIFIES it, and "ratify" is defined as...

Quote

 

ratify

verb (ratifies, ratifying, ratified) [ with obj. ]

sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.

DERIVATIVES

ratifiable adjective

ratifier noun

ORIGIN

late Middle English: from Old French ratifier, from medieval Latin ratificare, from Latin ratus 'fixed' (see RATE definition 1).

 

And, "valid" is defined as...

Quote

 

valid

adjective

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent: a valid criticism.

legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law: a valid contract.

legally or officially acceptable: the visas are valid for thirty days | a valid password.

DERIVATIVES

validly adverb

ORIGIN

late 16th cent.: from French valide or Latin validus 'strong,' from valere 'be strong.'

 

So, PLEASE, get off this ridiculous OBSESSION you have with the word "prevail!"

[Marcus O'Reillius]

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

So, PLEASE, get off this ridiculous OBSESSION you have with the word "prevail!"

No.

And we should not confuse the meaning of gabar, as you attempt to spin the word, when used as an adjective with its meaning when used as a verb.  As you know, but don't elaborate upon in your argument for "confirm" - Hebrew words often do double-duty, and even have triple meanings.  Especially tricky are the numerous times when the original author uses a verbless string of nouns.  Discerning meaning and application at those times is difficult to pinpoint as there may a variety of possibilities, but only one correct answer - which is succinctly expressed by such an array of nouns without specified action or actors.  And as God's Word is extremely brief, we can see His Wisdom in Shakespeare's quote that "Brevity is the soul of wit."  Also, such nebulous messages at times confirms that we are to seek Him; eschatology does not have one concise, include-all, complete rendition for us to instantly know all.

I can understand how the Ammillennial perspective of early 17th century scholars, working in isolation, by candlelight, led them to adopt an archaic definition of "confirm" to gabar.  When they are not looking for a future fulfillment, their interpretation in translating this passage negates any relative translation which would conflict with their basic view that the Kingdom of Christ has been accomplished.  Thus, as Ammillennialism is not future-thinking, but looks at such end-time within a figurative perspective, they can readily dismiss a literal, future application.  Their interpretation of the passage influences their translation of the passage.  Their figurative bias shows itself in their translation of "on wing" as "overspreading".  This actually aided me in my understanding of this prepositional phrase as meaning "quickly."  So not everything in other views is necessarily bad.  However, in a couple of instances, the King James version translators, have 'set the bar' on several key Christian concepts which has led to the formation of a young earth based on six days of creation, and the notion that Jesus somehow confirms a covenant...  We should not put these men on the pedestal of God's Truth and say they were divinely inspired and so accept their version on par with the Gospel.

This is the ONLY place the modern KJV translates this important, critical verb as such.  The other place the original KJV authors did this has been updated in the last century to prevail as well, as people misconstrued the word meaning in the Psalms because we simply don't use 'confirm' in that manner any more.

But gabar in Hebrew, simply does not mean confirm.  There is a perfectly good word that means confirm.  Let me get my concordance to find it, ah yes, here it is: qum, H6965, to arise, stand up; mala, H4390, to be full; and kun, H3559, to be firm.  That last one fits the bill for which you're trying to prevail in how you will spin a word to mean what you want it to say.

Now Gabriel did not use any of those words for the action which initiates the one 'seven'.
_________________________________________

Let's look at how prevail can describe how an evil, Machiavellian politician can rise up from within and cause things to happen which act as the tripwire for God's response.
Coincident with Daniel 9:27's start is the rise of a beast of a nation in Rev 13:2, and the rise of a beast of a man in Rev 13:4.  
He will exercise authority for the first half of the one 'seven' in Rev 13:5, and he will oppress us in Rev 13:7.

In perfect symmetry to Daniel 9:27, after introducing the beast from the land, (Israel) - the false prophet, we see the midpoint abomination as the talking image of the man who would proclaim himself god - the talking idol of Rev 13:14-15.  That this idol speaks! - is the cause for the magnitude of this abomination being emphasized in the Hebrew by its use of the plural suffix.

In perfect symmetry to the Olivet Discourse, because Jesus is the author of both, in Rev 13:15-16 we see the genesis of two laws which make the Great Tribulation so terrible that if God the Father had not shortened those days - none of the Elect (who are all that matter) would survive.  (The wicked are under no such threat of extermination by the anti-Christ and his forces as they willing worship the talking idol and take the mark of the beast.)

In a way, we can say that Revelation chapter 13 CONFIRMS a futuristic reading of Daniel 9:27's first and second clauses: the beginning and midpoint of the one 'seven'.
Scripture cannot be broken.

Also, from the sidebar account within the book of Revelation of 11:1-13, we can see where the Temple is rebuilt with the first half of the one 'seven' so that there is a physical building as Paul describes in 2Th 2, which matches what Jesus said in Mt 24:15 for the "Holy Place" - to be where the talking image of Rev 13 is set.
___________________________________________

All in all, you cannot show by action in Scripture, where Jesus legally fortifies an Old Testament Covenant so as to make it stronger - which would mean it would become the overriding factor for us - for just seven years.

It's not there despite your insistence that this must have been done.  You can't show me chapter and verse which actually says He confirms any OT Covenant.  It's not the affirmation that the Father gives at His Baptism.  That may reflect a Catholic idea of "confirmation" but it does not convey in any sense of the word, a ratification of the OT Covenants.
___________________________________________

Now - Jesus DID RATIFY a Covenant: THE NEW COVENANT - and He did that by the shedding of His Blood on the Cross - He CUT A DEAL when He LAID DOWN HIS LIFE.
His death was NOT an abomination.
The fleeing of the presence of God from the Most Holy Place most certainly left "their house" desolate because now their worship is meaningless.
We, however, have a means to worship in Spirit, through the Counselor - which transcends the OT Covenants - which are still enforce and will be fulfilled through Christ Jesus, our Hero and Savior.

HOWEVER AGAIN - the New Covenant in no way fulfills Daniel 9:27's end clauses for complete destruction (as will result from the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments) and also again being poured out on the very actor who 1. initiates the one 'seven' and 2. causes the midpoint abomination!
___________________________________________

The Preterist view on Daniel 9:27 is warm and fuzzy.  It makes us feel good on a very superficial level.
However, it cannot withstand any real scrutiny for fulfillment with either Scripture or history.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius
Clarification of how I can understand the KJV "confirm"

[Marcus O'Reillius]

On 7/2/2016 at 2:55 AM, ghtan said:

I read with interest your journey through the various rapture positions. As a mid-tribber, I am curious what was it that you found wanting in mid-trib that led you to adopt pre-wrath instead.

Pre-Wrath is, in my opinion, a refinement of Mid-Trib.

My initial Mid-Trib eschatology was based on the correlation I found in Jesus' Olivet Discourse and Daniel 9:27.

I did not deeply study the matter, but quickly rejected the predominant Pre-Trib Rapture placement as coming before the one 'seven'.

Likewise, I felt very confident based on that Jesus' admonishment of the Day of the Lord being an "unknown day" alone negated the classical "last day" Post-Trib Rapture where everything is done in an instant on the last day of the one 'seven'.

It was only through a long and arduous process of study staring in earnest 15 years that I came to adopt a Pre-Wrath position 10 years ago.
In between, I had to study each eschatology.  
One book I can recommend for contrasting major divisions in eschatology is: Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, by Darrell L. Bock.
One book I can recommend for contrasting divisions within Pre-Millennialism is: Three Views on the Rapture, edited by Stanley N. Gundry.
I studied the arguments made by all.  Gleason L. Archer Jr. is the representative of the Mid-Trib position in the latter book.
Both books are published by Zondervan Publishing House.

I am a fan of Gleason L. Archer Jr., who advocates the Mid-Trib position.  I even had the pleasure of asking him about a Hebrew word definition in my study some ten years ago.  I simply called him up and actually spoke with him for a minute or two while he was at work in his seminary in Washington state.  Thinking back on it, that was rather presumptuous of me to call, and most gracious for him to take the time to elaborate on what I was reading out of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament - which he helped edit.  I have a number of his books.  He is a great Bible scholar.

I continue to research other eschatologies and now I can see how people come to the conclusions they do.  Mostly it is because of a very elementary interpretation method.  How a person approached prophecy, figurative, idealist, preterist, or literal - then shapes how they construct their view.  Perspective shapes their conclusions.  Finding where we diverge in our opinions is more important to me than destroying their view.  I will vigorously defend my position though.  I do not try to destroy other's positions; I do try to show them where they might re-think their position based on their eschatologies' internal inconsistencies with Scripture.

I continue to refine my arguments, and occasionally I tweak my basic view on some point or another when I find a mistake.  I don't claim to be perfectly right, but on the whole, I think my "sequence-of-events" analysis, which my pastor says is a new paradigm in prophecy interpretation, is best because of a lack of internal consistencies within its framework outlining the end-times.  (I do not set dates.)

I have found this last argument with WilliamL on the Pre-Wrath position most illuminating because I discovered a new insight into Gabriel's concise prophecy to Daniel as being the highlight reel to the end-times which unites Jesus' First and Second Advents.  This buttresses my argument for defining Gabriel's use of "your people" as being a wider definition than is commonly used, which I started with too as well.  When I get some time after working today, I will write a paper on it.  (I've been very busy lately, and I have to get out the door in an hour and a half.  After today, I have five days off to get a lot of things done because when I am at work, I am always out of my home state, and sometimes out of the country.)

I don't know if this really answered your curiosity, because there really wasn't a single line of progression.  My adoption of Pre-Wrath is a refinement because when I got into a holistic examination of the linear narratives, I had to place the Rapture at some unspecified time after the midpoint abomination.  I was actually depressed to discover we had to go through the Great Tribulation.  I did not want to be defeated like that by the evil of this world.  However, now I can accept it.  Thus one of my themes and purpose in writing is to fortify Christians to Endure Patiently; that we do not have to "make it" to the end to make it to Heaven.

To sum up, our differences, while at times contentious, need not separate us.  We are not saved by our eschatological views; but by our faith in Christ Jesus.  The best students of eschatology who delight me are Pan-Millennialists: those Christians who just focus on today and simply say about eschatology is: "It'll all pan out in the end."  

Amen.

[ghtan]

13 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Pre-Wrath is, in my opinion, a refinement of Mid-Trib.

My initial Mid-Trib eschatology was based on the correlation I found in Jesus' Olivet Discourse and Daniel 9:27.

I don't know if this really answered your curiosity, because there really wasn't a single line of progression.  My adoption of Pre-Wrath is a refinement because when I got into a holistic examination of the linear narratives, I had to place the Rapture at some unspecified time after the midpoint abomination.  I was actually depressed to discover we had to go through the Great Tribulation.  I did not want to be defeated like that by the evil of this world.  However, now I can accept it.  Thus one of my themes and purpose in writing is to fortify Christians to Endure Patiently; that we do not have to "make it" to the end to make it to Heaven.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I have both books you mentioned and they have helped me to formulate my view. That said, I do not think Gleason Archer was convincing in presenting the mid-trib view but instead focused more on why he thought the other views were not right. But it speaks well of him that he took your call as you described.

Unfortunately you still have not explained why you shifted from mid-trib to pre-wrath esp why you think the rapture needs to occur later. However, I think mid-trib does not require the rapture to happen exactly mid-way through the events of Rev 4-19, only that it should happen sometime in between. Which means mid-trib expects us to go through a large part of the tribulation anyway. Perhaps you can specify where in Revelation you as a mid-tribber saw the rapture happening and where you see it happening now.