The Galilean wedding is the model for the pre-trib rapture

[WPM]

Great. The conclusion above is.

and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

NOW NEW PARAGRAPH.


Bub. I already showed you many times why what you are saying is incorrect. You see what your doctrine allows you to see.

I was post trib before I realized there are two raptures so that doesn't work on me.


Quit running and answer. When are you going to provide scriptural proof of a flat earth?

LOL. Noah told first thing to enter the ark.

Genesis 7
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

That shoot down your unscriptural comment.

LOL. You are continually ignoring the biblical evidence and leaning upon what you have been taught. You keep repeating Pretrib talking points that cannot be proved. That is why you resort to faultily and silliness.

I was Pretrib (like many here) and realized it had no biblical basis. Your avoidance reinforces that. You hold a doctrine that you cannot support from clear Scripture. It contradicts numerous explicit climatic Scripture.

I refer you back to the OT and NT text above that forbids your error.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is more, what has 7 days in Noah's day to do with 7 years in your so-called future tribulation? Do you think Noah's world went through a 7-day great tribulation before the flood came?

LOL! If he was consistent, then he would have to believe that. But, what he isn't acknowledging is that he is making comparisons between Noah's day and the day Jesus comes again that Jesus Himself didn't make. That's something that someone does when they know what Jesus actually said doesn't support their doctrine. So, they try to add to what He said and change what He said to make it fit their doctrine. Sad.

 

[The Light]

This does not say that the flood didn't start until 7 days after Noah went into the ark. It may very well have started raining immediately after he went into the ark, but the water didn't actually cover the earth until after the first 7 days went by. How else can we make sense of what Jesus said here:

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Ok.........

They ate, they drank, they partied until the week of the game. And the game was played, and the Giants were destroyed.

Jesus indicated that the flood came the same day that Noah entered the ark.

Genesis 7 says God told Noah to enter the ark. Before anything else, God told Noah to enter the ark. Do you think he waited 7 days to obey? The Word says........

Genesis 7
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

Are you going to just ignore that? Was He mistaken? Was He somehow not familiar with Genesis 7:10? No, of course not. He would not say something to contradict scripture. So, we should take Him at His word and interpret Genesis 7:10 in such a way that doesn't contradict what Jesus said. But, instead of doing that, you are trying to change what Jesus said to fit your understanding of Genesis 7:10.

See above. Simple enough.

Beyond that, you ignore what Jesus said about Lot. The very day that Lot left Sodom, the city was destroyed. Jesus said "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.". Why would you not compare Lot leaving Sodom with the church being raptured the way you compare Noah entering the ark to the church being raptured? There's no reason why not except for doctrinal bias.

The day Lot left Sodom is not to be compared to the Church. There are two raptures. One like the days of Noah where Noah is shut in the ark 6 days before the flood and one like the Lot where the very day Lot left Sodom destruction came. The day of the second rapture is the day of the Lord, and it occurs at the 6th seal.

And beyond all that, even if you were correct that Noah entered the ark 7 days before the flood came, how does that equate to the rapture occurring 7 years before Jesus comes again? It's so clear that you are manipulating the text to make it say what you want in order to make it fit your doctrine. You should not do that.

It doesn't. Noah is sealed in the ark 6 days before the flood.

Your view has people eating and drinking and marrying up until Noah enters the ark and then, for some insane reason, they stop eating and drinking 6 or 7 days before the flood even starts? What nonsense! Do you not understand that many people wouldn't even survive that long without eating or drinking? LOL! You're not even thinking here. You are making up stories of what you want to happen instead of letting scripture tell you what is going to happen.

My view is what the text says. They were eating and drinking until the day Noah entered the ark. If you don't believe that nothing I can do. Some believe what is written and some believe what they think it should say.

 

[The Light]

LOL. You are continually ignoring the biblical evidence and leaning upon what you have been taught. You keep repeating Pretrib talking points that cannot be proved. That is why you resort to faultily and silliness.

I was Pretrib (like many here) and realized it had no biblical basis. Your avoidance reinforces that. You hold a doctrine that you cannot support from clear Scripture. It contradicts numerous explicit climatic Scripture.

I refer you back to the OT and NT text above that forbids your error.

It like the kid that picks fights. Gets his butt kicked every time and then wants to fight some more

 

[WPM]

LOL! If he was consistent, then he would have to believe that. But, what he isn't acknowledging is that he is making comparisons between Noah's day and the day Jesus comes again that Jesus Himself didn't make. That's something that someone does when they know what Jesus actually said doesn't support their doctrine. So, they try to add to what He said and change what He said to make it fit their doctrine. Sad.

Yes! It is all extra-biblical theories, fabricated types, and foolish man-made speculations.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Way more resurrections specifically and literally are addressed in Scripture, than a single all consuming resurrection.

John 11:43-44.

Matthew 27:52-53.

Revelation 20:4-6

So, you disagree with what Jesus said here then?

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus very explicitly said that all of the dead would be resurrected at a future hour/time. That's one resurrection event. He was not talking about events where people were resurrected and later died. He was talking about the time when believers would be resurrected and changed to have incorruptible bodies with unbelievers being resurrected unto condemnation after which they end up being cast into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15).

So, please tell me exactly how you interpret John 5:28-29.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It like the kid that picks fights. Gets his butt kicked every time and then wants to fight some more

Yes, that is exactly how you are. You don't know when to quit. If this was a football game, you are behind 84-0 and still think you can win.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok.........

They ate, they drank, they partied until the week of the game. And the game was played, and the Giants were destroyed.

What is this? Are you trying to hide from the absurdity of your belief? Do you believe they stopped eating and drinking 6 days before the flood came or not?

The day Lot left Sodom is not to be compared to the Church.

LOL. How convenient of you to come to that completely biased conclusion.

There are two raptures.

LOL. No.

My view is what the text says. They were eating and drinking until the day Noah entered the ark. If you don't believe that nothing I can do. Some believe what is written and some believe what they think it should say.

I believe what is written and I also believe that what is written would not defy all logic and reason the way thinking that everyone in the world stopped eating and drinking for 6 days before the flood came.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Why do you talk here at all? You can't understand anything anyone says. Yes, I am post-trib, but my understanding of the tribulation is different than yours. There was tribulation around 70 AD, but that isn't the tribulation that I believe Jesus returns right after. Jesus spoke of global tribulation (unlike Matthew 24:15-21, which is only local tribulation and is God's wrath) related to a high level of deception and an increase in wickedness that would occur just before His second coming (Matthew 24:10-12;23-26). As long as you continue to ignore that He spoke of two different events because of being asked two different questions, you are just not going to get it.

I do get "it".

The church would have tribulation from the day of Pentecost until the Second Coming. Then that tribulation would be over of those days, because the church is gone.

In Matthew 24, the church asked the questions, and got a church answer. In Luke 21, those at the temple asked the questions and got information that we now know included, but not limited to 70AD. 70AD was not what the church would miss after the Second Coming.

The AoD happens after the 7th Trumpet after the Second Coming. That is the time of tribulation and trouble given to Jacob, and the entire earth, after the church has been removed.

70AD was just a speed bump in the tribulation of those days, that have now lasted 1994 years.

You have the Millennial reign of Christ running simultaneously with this tribulation. So according to "that", nothing happens after this tribulation of those days.

One can simply read Revelation 6, 7, and 8, and see that events happen after the rapture and Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

That reveals how you do not study your Bible, but rely on what men tell you to think instead, because God's Word DOES reveal the gathering of the Church to Jesus will... happen on the last day of this world:

1 Thess 4:14-16
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
KJV

John 6:40
40 And this is the will of Him That sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
KJV

Same argument as post mill. Then you deny that you are post mill.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As I said the text shows new paragraph. You are using the fact that Noah was 600 plus years old on the same day as the flood and trying to claim the animals loaded on that day.

False. They all entered on the selfsame day. Day one.......the day God told him to enter.

Noah entered and after 7 days the flood was upon the earth.

Cut and dried

Since I'm not near as adept as my brother with the Hebrew language, I'll defer to him. Here is his response, which appears to side with some of what you say, that Noah entered the ark and then 7 days lapsed...

I'll make some observations that just come to mind in response to your email.

First, there is a "paragraph" break, one might say, between Genesis 7:5 and 7:6 in the Masoretic Text. This is indicated by verse 6 starting on a separate line from the line before. But this is not a paragraph in the sense that we speak of a paragraph in English. For example, a paragraph in English is typically confined to one, major topic and the development of that topic. Not so in Hebrew. Here is a quote from A Simplified Guide to BHS: 1. The Divisions. B. Paragraph Markings

"At one time there was a significant difference between an 'open' paragraph (one starting on a new line) and a 'closed' paragraph (which started on the same line as the preceding paragraph with a short space separating the two.) Over the years, increasing inconsistency developed concerning this difference in format, and it was largely ignored by the time of Codex Leningradensis."

The paragraph continues by explaining the use of two Hebrew letters used to preserve the distinction. More could be said about this, but what does this mean for the line break between verses 5 and 6? It just means there is a line break between these verses. As usual, though, context is the best guide for discerning why the scribes put a line break at this location. Here, we find that God is speaking to Noah in vv. 1-4. In verse 5, Noah's response to God's words to him is summed up in a sentence. Then, verse 6 begins with a statement correlating Noah's age with the start of the flood. This is followed by narrative. So, the line break may be understood broadly as separating dialogue and response (vv. 1-5) from the narrative that follows (7:6-7:24).

As for when Noah entered the ark, I read that God commanded Noah and his family to go into the ark in 7:1. In verse 4, God says that the rains will begin in seven days. Then in 7:7, it says that Noah and his family entered the ark. In verse 10, it says that "after the seven days, the floodwaters came on the earth" (NIV). This redundancy is characteristic of the story-telling art in ancient times, where repetition helped fix details in the minds of the hearers. So, I agree that there were seven days from the time Noah entered the ark and the rains fell.

One rule of good hermeneutics is that the meaning of a passage should first of all be understood from the writer's (Moses') intent. Secondly, it should be understood from the perspective of the immediate listeners (the Jews who fled Egypt). Would Moses or the people in the wilderness have understood that this "seven-day period of waiting" was a reference to the Great Tribulation of End Times? Of course not. The genre is historical narrative, not eschatalogical or prophetic exhortation for an end-times audience. Unless these verses are so interpreted (perhaps as an analogy) elsewhere in Scripture to refer to the Tribulation, this simply become eisegesis instead of exegesis--reading something into a verse that the Holy Spirit didn't put there as opposed to hearing and drawing out the point the inspired author is making in plain language to his immediate audience.

 

[The Light]

Yes! It is all extra-biblical theories, fabricated types, and foolish man-made speculations.

Yeah, like thinking the 144,000 is the Church. You won't take the Word of God that the 144,000 are the first fruits of the 12 tribes. You have to speculate because you don't know where the Church is.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is you who deny these elders are humans, because even you say they have crowns before you think any one should. No other poster is saying they have had the crowns for thousands of years. And there is no Scripture that states they cannot have already received their reward. The point is, that if you did not deny these are humans, you would have to say they were just rewarded, like most posters here, would admit.

No, whether they are humans or angels I can't be certain. I just happen to think it's more logical to view them as angels.

I'm not discounting your argument that elders and crowns seem to speak of humans. I just don't think it is required, and I won't base a doctrine on something that is not being explicitly stated and explained as such.

 

[The Light]

Since I'm not near as adept as my brother with the Hebrew language, I'll defer to him. Here is his response, which appears to side with some of what you say, that Noah entered the ark and then 7 days lapsed...

I'll make some observations that just come to mind in response to your email.

First, there is a "paragraph" break, one might say, between Genesis 7:5 and 7:6 in the Masoretic Text. This is indicated by verse 6 starting on a separate line from the line before. But this is not a paragraph in the sense that we speak of a paragraph in English. For example, a paragraph in English is typically confined to one, major topic and the development of that topic. Not so in Hebrew. Here is a quote from A Simplified Guide to BHS: 1. The Divisions. B. Paragraph Markings

"At one time there was a significant difference between an 'open' paragraph (one starting on a new line) and a 'closed' paragraph (which started on the same line as the preceding paragraph with a short space separating the two.) Over the years, increasing inconsistency developed concerning this difference in format, and it was largely ignored by the time of Codex Leningradensis."

The paragraph continues by explaining the use of two Hebrew letters used to preserve the distinction. More could be said about this, but what does this mean for the line break between verses 5 and 6? It just means there is a line break between these verses. As usual, though, context is the best guide for discerning why the scribes put a line break at this location. Here, we find that God is speaking to Noah in vv. 1-4. In verse 5, Noah's response to God's words to him is summed up in a sentence. Then, verse 6 begins with a statement correlating Noah's age with the start of the flood. This is followed by narrative. So, the line break may be understood broadly as separating dialogue and response (vv. 1-5) from the narrative that follows (7:6-7:24).

As for when Noah entered the ark, I read that God commanded Noah and his family to go into the ark in 7:1. In verse 4, God says that the rains will begin in seven days. Then in 7:7, it says that Noah and his family entered the ark. In verse 10, it says that "after the seven days, the floodwaters came on the earth" (NIV). This redundancy is characteristic of the story-telling art in ancient times, where repetition helped fix details in the minds of the hearers. So, I agree that there were seven days from the time Noah entered the ark and the rains fell.

One rule of good hermeneutics is that the meaning of a passage should first of all be understood from the writer's (Moses') intent. Secondly, it should be understood from the perspective of the immediate listeners (the Jews who fled Egypt). Would Moses or the people in the wilderness have understood that this "seven-day period of waiting" was a reference to the Great Tribulation of End Times? Of course not. The genre is historical narrative, not eschatalogical or prophetic exhortation for an end-times audience. Unless these verses are so interpreted (perhaps as an analogy) elsewhere in Scripture to refer to the Tribulation, this simply become eisegesis instead of exegesis--reading something into a verse that the Holy Spirit didn't put there as opposed to hearing and drawing out the point the inspired author is making in plain language to his immediate audience.

If I am following correctly, he is saying that Noah entered the ark 7 days before the flood as I was saying.

Then he says (I think) that we cannot tie this 7-day period to the tribulation. If that what he is saying I would say that is accurate.

I personally do think the 7-day period is a picture of the 70th week of Daniel. Wrath comes 6 days after the door is shut. Which I think implies wrath will come 6 years after the Church is in heaven. Is this something that is an absolute. Surely not. It is something that we need to be aware of. God is big with numbers.

Well done on sending it to your friend. He understood the text. And thank you for presenting it.

 

[WPM]

Yeah, like thinking the 144,000 is the Church. You won't take the Word of God that the 144,000 are the first fruits of the 12 tribes. You have to speculate because you don't know where the Church is.

Not true. I take them as the firstfruits (the early church move in Israel). You take them as the last fruits. This is another reason to reject Pretrib. You are obviously running out of arguments.

You cannot even give us one single prooftext that supports your religious theory.

 

[The Light]

Not true. Amils I take them as the firstfruits (the early church move in Israel). You take them as the last fruits. This is another reason to reject Pretrib. You are obviously running out of arguments.

You cannot even give us one single prooftext that supports your religious theory.

Full chuckle on that Baloney. Thanks for the laugh.

I take them as first fruits because the text calls them first fruits.

Rev 14

3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

And they are from the 12 tribes of Israel just as the text says.

You sure do make a lot of stuff up. Why not try going by what is written. You might gain some understanding.

 

[jeffweeder]

Good luck finding any scripture that explicitly spells out the timing of the rapture.

2Thess 1

3 We ought always and indeed are morally obligated [as those in debt] to give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters, as is fitting, because your faith is growing ever greater, and the [unselfish] love of each one of you toward one another is continually increasing.

4 Therefore, we speak of you with pride among the churches of God for your steadfastness [your unflinching endurance, and patience] and your firm faith in the midst of all the persecution and [crushing] distress which you endure.

5 This is a positive proof of the righteous judgment of God [a sign of His fair verdict], so that you will be considered worthy of His kingdom, for which indeed you are suffering.

6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with distress those who distress you, 7 and to give relief to you who are so distressed and to us as well
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in a flame of fire, 8 dealing out [full and complete] vengeance to those who do not [seek to] know God and to those who ignore and refuse to obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus [by choosing not to respond to Him]. 9 These people will pay the penalty and endure the punishment of everlasting destruction, banished from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day [that is, glorified through the changed lives of those who have accepted Him as Savior and have been set apart for His purpose], and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed and trusted [and confirmed in your lives].


The Thessalonians, Paul himself, and all who have believed, will be caught up in his presence when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his Angels in flaming fire, dealing out complete vengeance on those who refuse to know God and obey the Gospel.
These people will pay the penalty of everlasting destruction on that day.
All Believers on the other hand will be glorified on that day.

Jesus taught the exact same thing in Matt 25,

The Judgment​

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory and majesty and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him [for judgment]; and He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right [the place of honor], and the goats on His left [the place of rejection].

34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father [you favored of God, appointed to eternal salvation], inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world


41 “Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Leave Me, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels (demons);

46 Then these [unbelieving people] will go away into eternal (unending) punishment, but those who are righteous and in right standing with God [will go, by His remarkable grace] into eternal (unending) life.”

 

[WPM]

Full chuckle on that Baloney. Thanks for the laugh.

I take them as first fruits because the text calls them first fruits.

Rev 14

3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

And they are from the 12 tribes of Israel just as the text says.

You sure do make a lot of stuff up. Why not try going by what is written. You might gain some understanding.

You are describing yourself. Are they then the firstfruits or last-fruits of the harvest of God that began 2000?

 

[jeffweeder]

You are describing yourself. Are they then firstfruits or last-fruits of the harvest of God that began 2000?

How can those who laid the foundation to the New Jerusalem not be the first fruits?

 

[Davy]

Lol
All of them but John were murdered by the devil.
Try again.

Like I showed, that Luke 21 example is for the END of this world. The Scripture example you quoted was for the Apostle's days. Got to rightly divide the timelines in Bible Scripture according to God's written Word, not by man's word.