Quote:
" the Flood is not used as a choreography detailing the exact sequence of the 2nd Coming. It is used as an example of God's Wrath without all of the inserted itinerary. This is not an exegesis at all. The assumptions being made are not doctrinally asserted in the Scriptures"
Uh, no, it is so hurtful to your doctrine, that there is, in honesty, no way to spin it away from what is ACTUALLY SAYS.
Mat 24
37. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Hello?
"In the days BEFORE THE FLOOD, EATING, AND DRINKING..NORMAL LIFE AND PEACETIME "
"Watch as He is coming before the flood"
Before the flood, one taken/ left
Vivid chronology
EXACT CHRONOLOGY.
UNMISTAKABLE, and also dishonest, to try and rewrite God's Holy Book.
Red flags galore.
The only thing you've proven here is that you are guessing at what "one taken and one left" means. Both groups are being judged at the Roman invasion, some being carted away in captivity and some left alive to man the orchards and fields.
This was the order of things in the biblical accounts of foreign invasions into Israel. Some were taken and some were left in the land--usually the poorest among them.
You think this is the Rapture, because popular songs were written expressing this bad theology and because books were written expressing a theology that isn't even in the Scriptures. You have to take parables to prove doctrines that aren't even in the Bible. You have to warp symbolism to fit your preconceived notions, turning one historical event into a chronology of your predicted future event.
You might as well make the 10 Virgins parable into an exact account of the Coming of Christ by having Christians and non-Christians go out and purchase "spiritual oil" at the sound of the Groom's call. Wait--that doesn't fit Pretrib Rapture either! You can't go out and buy "spiritual oil" after the call comes because "the call is the Trumpet call of the Rapture, and it is too late!"
You don't get it--parables are not intended to be exact chronologies of what they represent! The chronology of a parable is different than the chronology of what they represent by definition!
And what do you prove by reading that people in Noah's day weren't expecting the Flood? That is the same as it is today when unbelievers do not expect God's eternal judgment upon their souls? There is no difference between God's wrath in Noah's day and the coming outpouring of God's wrath at Armageddon except that one involved one small righteous family and at the end of the age there will be believers in all nations, though persecuted by a world largely committed to unbelief?
You clearly don't know how parables relate to what they represent. You clearly don't know how to compare one story with an entirely different story with only a moral lesson comparing between them!
The Flood of Noah was never meant to be exactly like the Coming of Christ, which is an entirely different story. They are only meant to be compared with respect to their commonalities. Both brought salvation to God's People and judgment to the unbelieving world. Regardless of your eschatology, these two different accounts are comparable, though not in the details that pertain to each story.
The commonality of judgment and the commonality of preparedness or not make no determination as to your eschatology. You have to impose something foreign, to have your view, if you insist on inserting an eschatology that isn't even in the Bible.
