What is the Day of the Lord?

[Daniel 11:36]

"How can you say that when one of the 4 beasts say, "come and see" And John SEES something? OF COURSE there is "occurance." The first seal is to represent the going forth of the gospel to the world. That "occurred." Philip began it by going to Samaria."

 

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

All of the seals are a pretext of what is coming

The Lord opens them all one after the other [Revelation 5:1-10]

The first is the depiction of His coming to bring the tribulation of His wrath and judgment

None of them are actual events, but a prelude of His coming tribulation period which will begin in chapter 8

Chapter 4 is about John being taken to heaven in the future to be shown the 70th week decreed for Israel 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Daniel 11:36

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

You can be sure, the seals were and will be opened in order. We are waiting on the 6th seal to be opened.  The first five have already been opened. There are martyrs still be added to the number.

The first five have been opened? Where was the A of D? I must have missed it. Missed great tribulation too. 

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

"True, it begins with the 6th seal, well into the last week ,as evidenced by the fact the first 5 seals have already opened. Or are you saying the seals are opened out of order? You must be."

 

The seals have nothing to do with prophetic occurrence, but to simply indicate what is to come during the tribulation period

The events of the tribulation period begin in chapter 8 and end in chapter 19

Curiouser, and curiouser.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

It appears you attempted to do some homework. I guess you missed Strongs:

For "apo" the first part of the compound word, Apostasia

Incorrect. This is the entry from Strong's:

 

Strong's Concordance

apostasia: defection, revolt

Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apostasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: defection, apostasy
Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.

HELPS Word-studies

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

As you can see from this, "aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand"" aphistemi is derived from 'apo' and 'histemi'. Apostasia is not derived from 'apo'.  Apostasia is related to aphistemi but you got the definition wrong. Aphistemi implies desertion as you can see from the definition above. Apostasy is defined literally as, "a leaving, from a previous standing". Making your attempt at defining apostasia as 'a departure from one place to another' false. Strong's defines apostasia as 'revolt' or 'defection' and it has been defined this way since the time of Paul. Check the etymology.

Of Separation
of the separation of apart from the whole; where of a whole some part is taken:

Consider the rapture of the church: is not a part of the whole (population) removed from the whole population?

For the 'stasia part, that means a standing, or something stationary.

In fact, the rapture will be SO SUDDEN those left behind, even if they were walking, will be left standing, or be stationary - not moving - while the righteous are taken.

 

Again, perhaps you have not read the first translations from Greek to English: they used the word "departing."  These are people so well verse in Greek and Hebrew that they make translations of the entire bible. I trust them.

It is a departing, from a previous standing, a desertion of mind, a change in ideology, leaving a former belief.

Tyndale: 1525:  Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion

Would you say that he was incompetant?

The reading I've done is not flattering to Tyndale.

Coverdale: 1535  Let noman disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that that Man of synne be opened, euen the sonne of perdicion,

Same here. However, neither version has a departure from one place to another in mind, which you have to prove from the definitions, not less than clever rhetoric.

Would you say he was incompetant?

Next, do you believe what Paul wrote? In particular, do you believe verses 6, 7 and 8?

As a matter of fact, yes. You don't understand what Paul said, but I do believe what he said.

 

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

 

I guess you miss this: 

apo stasía   Do you SEE the "apo?" Apostasia is a compound word: Apo and Stasia. 

From Strongs:

Root Word (Etymology)

Feminine of the same as ἀποστάσιον (G647)

 

So G647: apostasion   Notice still the "apo"

 

Root Word (Etymology)

Neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of ἀφίστημι (G868)

G868: aphistēmi

Root Word (Etymology)

From ἀπό (G575) and ἵστημι (G2476)  (Notice again the apo: this is a compound word)

 

G575 Apo  The first part of apo stasia

 

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. of separation

   1. of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...

   2. of separation of a part from the whole

      1. where of a whole some part is taken

   3. of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

   4. of a state of separation, that is of distance

      1. physical, of distance of place

      2. temporal, of distance of time

Notice also this Greek word:

aphiēmi translated as divorce as  in 1 Cor. 7:11

 

Root Word (Etymology)

From ἀπό (G575) and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go)

 

Here is our word Apo again. Please tell us, in a divorce, does not one person leave or separate from the other by a physical separation of distance?

 

So If we look at each separate word, Apo and Stasia we see an exact definition of the rapture. 

 

Then again, of you notice (apparently you have not) that in 2 Thes. 2:3b that the man of sin IS REVEALED, then you should have put two and two together, so to speak and discovered that in verse 3a the one restraining MUST BE "taken out of the way." 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

5 hours ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

"How can you say that when one of the 4 beasts say, "come and see" And John SEES something? OF COURSE there is "occurance." The first seal is to represent the going forth of the gospel to the world. That "occurred." Philip began it by going to Samaria."

 

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

All of the seals are a pretext of what is coming

The Lord opens them all one after the other [Revelation 5:1-10]

The first is the depiction of His coming to bring the tribulation of His wrath and judgment

None of them are actual events, but a prelude of His coming tribulation period which will begin in chapter 8

Chapter 4 is about John being taken to heaven in the future to be shown the 70th week decreed for Israel 

Daniel, you are reading that verse as if it read thus: 

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee ONLY things which must be hereafter.

In other words, If I say I will meet you at the park, this does NOT preclude me from going to Mc Donalds first. 

Just because Jesus said He would show John things of the future does NOT preclude Him from including things from the past, which He does.

Did you just not notice that at seal 5 there is a WAITING period? We are STILL waiting....for what? For the last martyr of the church age. 

We have been over this before: It is NOT future for three reasons - no, four!

1. Jesus was NOT SEEN at the right hand of the Father, when we have a dozen verses telling us that is where He should have been.

2. John watched a search in heaven, on earth and under the earth for one worthy to break the seals, and that search ended in failure. Why? If it was future, Jesus would have been found in the FIRST search. 

3. The Holy Spirit was there in the throne room (as the 7 fold spirits of God) when Jesus said He would send Him down as soon as He ascended.

4. In chapter 5, we see Jesus WAS found worthy in a subsequent search. And we see the moment He ascended. That would have been in 32 or 33 AD. Just so you know, that was LONG before John saw this vision. 

I'll take it back: SIX reasons:

In chapter five we see the moment the Holy Spirit was sent down: the same moment Jesus ascended.

There are six reasons in chapters 4 & 5 to show us it was a vision of the past. And that, my friend, is the CONTEXT of the first seals. He broke five seals, and then at the fifth said there must be a time of waiting.

 

 

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

The first five have been opened? Where was the A of D? I must have missed it. Missed great tribulation too. 

I guess you just overlooked chapters 4 & 5 which are the context of the first seals. Did you not know that the days of GT will come starting in chapter 15? What? You imagine God would warn not to take the mark after millions or billions had already taken it? Perhaps you have not read chapter 14 yet.  Sorry, but you are miles from the truth in what you wrote here. 

[Daniel 11:36]

"There are six reasons in chapters 4 & 5 to show us it was a vision of the past. And that, my friend, is the CONTEXT of the first seals. He broke five seals, and then at the fifth said there must be a time of waiting."

 

None of the seals have  been opened as we speak .... the Lord will open these just before He brings His wrath and tribulation upon an unbelieving world

[Diaste]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:21 PM, iamlamad said:

I guess you just overlooked chapters 4 & 5 which are the context of the first seals. Did you not know that the days of GT will come starting in chapter 15? What? You imagine God would warn not to take the mark after millions or billions had already taken it? Perhaps you have not read chapter 14 yet.  Sorry, but you are miles from the truth in what you wrote here. 

Revelation is not a strict chronology. There are chronological sections, and an umbrella of chronology, but not in the entirety of the book.

For instance, the Wrath of the Lamb is seen in Rev 6. Great tribulation comes before Jesus returns to mete out wrath. GT would then occur in ch. 6 and ch 15 according to you. One must discern the overall timeline and appropriate chronology realizing following chapters detail events revealed in a preceding chapter or chapters.

 

[Diaste]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:19 PM, iamlamad said:

Daniel, you are reading that verse as if it read thus: 

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee ONLY things which must be hereafter.

In other words, If I say I will meet you at the park, this does NOT preclude me from going to Mc Donalds first. 

Just because Jesus said He would show John things of the future does NOT preclude Him from including things from the past, which He does.

Did you just not notice that at seal 5 there is a WAITING period? We are STILL waiting....for what? For the last martyr of the church age. 

We have been over this before: It is NOT future for three reasons - no, four!

1. Jesus was NOT SEEN at the right hand of the Father, when we have a dozen verses telling us that is where He should have been.

Well...this is proof by omission and logically fallacious. In other words; the omission of a fact in an investigation is not proof of the opposite. No conclusion can be drawn in a case like this. However, you mention, "we have a dozen verses telling us that is where He should have been". This is positive proof and refutes the negative proof you offer, and in your own words. Also, there a many omissions of attributes of the throne room. Are you saying these do not exist? For instance, what about the train of His robe filling the temple from Isaiah 6? Is that not there? What about the blazing, wheeled throne of God from Dan 7? Have the flames gone out in Rev 5? So do the seraphim no longer have hands? Is there no tong to remove coals from the altar, is there no altar, as these things are not mentioned in Rev 4-5? Just because these attributes are not mentioned in Rev 4-5 does not mean they are absent. Clearly they are attributes as scripture tells us they exist.

2. John watched a search in heaven, on earth and under the earth for one worthy to break the seals, and that search ended in failure. Why? If it was future, Jesus would have been found in the FIRST search. 

Nooo...you are creating a false equivalency. No search was undertaken. This is a statement of fact. No person was found worthy. This isn't the result of a physical search, it's a statement of the unworthiness of the heart and spirit of mankind to attain the position and responsibility required. Jesus prevailed and was found worthy in Spirit.

3. The Holy Spirit was there in the throne room (as the 7 fold spirits of God) when Jesus said He would send Him down as soon as He ascended.

Hmm...If this is the case, the Holy Spirit not on earth and only in heaven in ch 5 of Rev, then you must be saying the power of the Spirit is limited to location. As in the Spirit cannot empower believers from a location where He is not. How do you explain the power of the Spirit in millions of individuals, concurrently, all over the earth? You must also be saying the Spirit could not have been with the many OT prophets as the Spirit had not been sent by Jesus until NT times.

4. In chapter 5, we see Jesus WAS found worthy in a subsequent search. And we see the moment He ascended. That would have been in 32 or 33 AD. Just so you know, that was LONG before John saw this vision. 

Where does Rev 4-5 say Jesus just ascended? Like scripture. Words that say something like, "Jesus just ascended."?

I'll take it back: SIX reasons:

In chapter five we see the moment the Holy Spirit was sent down: the same moment Jesus ascended.

Where?

There are six reasons in chapters 4 & 5 to show us it was a vision of the past. And that, my friend, is the CONTEXT of the first seals. He broke five seals, and then at the fifth said there must be a time of waiting.

You'll soon see the truth. The beast will be resurrected soon and the first seal opened, soon.